
/'"•" /.-..,.% ^;v-.\ ^I'i'-V 










'<v 




,- .^ 



% 



'• v o** .- i«fc % <* •" life °, "^ <* 



"\> v ..~.."% 




■"..r^---y....: <.;•-■ •y.;-.:<-;. ^ 





W 



c^ . 



r \^ ~ • 



s> °^ 



\> - t * , ^U \^ Y » p , 



<>> ", 



%.rf 











* <2 








■d^l 






U' 









o 






^o^ 

* 



^ <36 



^vo x 









c 



r° -^ 



A. 






< P '■. ^ (P* ^ 



-0- * i - ,- v£ 



c y- ^ 



^ 



°o 



'-% 



ofr 1 



^ 



%(* 



^ 



O-. -> 



* a. 
















^ °- 









* «* 



S* 









<£. 












V* V<»* %^ 












<£<& 






* 






^ 






^ AX 






c 



^vo< 



<6- <5^ 



- ^ 



^-0^ 






cv 


















£ °^ 
























Q 






^ 



c* %. 






^ % 



G°\- 



<> 



'^ CP 




^0^ 



; ^ °- 



A GENERAL SURVEY OP THE HISTORY 
OF THE CANON 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 



by 

BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT D.D. 



second edition 



London : 
MACMILIAN AND CO 

1866 



"SfbZZZO 
.W5 









TO THE RIGHT REVEREND 

JAMES PRINCE LEE D.D. 

LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER, 

AND LATE 

HEAD MASTER OF KING EDWARD'S SCHOOL, 
BIRMINGHAM, 

(Tins (Bssag is instrM, 

WITH SINCERE AFFECTION AND GRATITUDE, 
BY HIS FORMER PUPIL. 



i 



July 1855. 



NOTICE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



DURING the eleven years. which have elapsed since 
the first edition of this History of the New Testament 
Canon was published, the subject with which it deals has 
been brought under frequent discussion. It is therefore 
with real thankfulness that I can feel that the positions 
which I ocoupied at first have in every case, as far as I 
can judge; remained unshaken. On the first appearance 
of the book a favourable critic remarked that I had 'con- 
' ceded to opponents more than I need have done ' in the 
conduct of the inquiry. Perhaps it was so then, but I 
felt sure that I had not conceded more than I ought, 
and therefore no further concessions remain to be made 
now. The lesson even in this narrow field is not without 
value. Every one admits that Truth has nothing to 
fear from the fullest inquiry into each portion of the 
realm which she claims for her inheritance; but it is hard 
to carry the admission into practice. And so reticence 
begets suspicion, and suspicion hardens into distrust and 
disbelief, which would never have grown up, if a candid 



viii Notice to the Second Edition. 

exposition of difficulties and defects in evidence had been 
made in the first instance by one who did not hold them 
to be insuperable. 

It will be found that the whole Essay has been care- 
fully revised. Very much has been added from sources 
either new or neglected by me before. By an enlarge- 
ment of Appendix D I have given the documentary 
evidence for the Canon of the whole Bible, furnishing in 
this way the original texts of the principal passages which 
are given only in a translation in the Bible in the Church. 
In the task of revision I found valuable help in Cred- 
ner s posthumous Geschichte der JS r eutestamentlichen Kanon 
(Berlin i860), though the unfinished work is at best only 
an inadequate expression of his judgment. 

My thanks are due to Dr Tregelles for a fac-simile 
of his tracing of the Muratorian Canon, and to many other 
friends for corrections and additions, of whom I may be 
allowed to name specially the Rev. F. J. A. Hort. To 
the Bev. Hilton Bothamley my obligations are still greater. 
He not only revised the proofs and verified almost all the 
references, but also furnished me with constant and valu- 
able suggestions which have contributed in no small de- 
gree to whatever superiority in accuracy and arrangement 
the new edition has over the old. 

B. F. W. 



Harrow, 

July gtli, 1 366. 



PREFACE. 



MY object in the present Essay has been to deal with 
the New Testament as a whole, and that on purely- 
historical grounds. The separate books of which it is 
composed are considered not individually, but as claiming 
to be parts of the Apostolic heritage of Christians. And 
thus reserving for another occasion the inquiry into their 
mutual relations and essential unity, I have endeavoured 
to connect the history of the New Testament Canon with 
the growth and consolidation of the Catholic Church, and 
to point out the relation existing between the amount 
of evidence for the authenticity of its component parts, 
and the whole mass of Christian literature. However 
imperfectly this design has been carried out, I cannot 
but hope that such a method of inquiry will convey both 
the truest notion of the connexion of the written Word 
with the living body of Christ, and the surest conviction 
of its divine authority. Hitherto the co-existence of seve- 
ral types of Apostolic doctrine in the first age and of 
various parties in Christendom for several generations 
afterwards has been quoted to prove that our Bible as 
well as our Faith is a mere compromise. But while I 
acknowledge most willingly the great merit of the Tu- 
bingen School in pointing out with marked distinctness 
the characteristics of the different books of the New 
c. b 



x Preface, 

Testament, and their connexion with special sides of 
Christian doctrine and with various eras in the Christian 
Church, it seems to me almost inexplicable that they 
should not have found in those writings the explanation 
instead of the result of the divisions which are traceable 
to the Apostolic times. 

To lay claim to candour is only to profess in other 
words that I have sought to fulfil the part of an historian 
and not of a controversialist. No one will be more grieved 
than myself if I have misrepresented or omitted any 
point of real importance; and those who know the extent 
and intricacy of the ground to be travelled over will 
readily pardon less serious errors. But candour will not 
I trust be mistaken for indifference: for I have no sym- 
pathy with those who are prepared to sacrifice with ap- 
parent satisfaction each debated position at the first 
assault. Truth is indeed dearer than early faith, but he 
can love truth little who knows no other love. If then I 
have ever spoken coldly of Holy Scripture, it is because 
I have wished to limit my present statements to the just 
consequences of the evidence brought forward. But his- 
tory is not our only guide ; for while internal criticism 
cannot usurp the place of history, it has its proper field; 
and as feeling cannot decide on facts, so neither can tes- 
timony convey that sense of the manifold wisdom of the 
Apostolic words which is I believe the sure blessing of 
those who seek rightly to penetrate into their meaning. 

Whatever obligations I owe to previous writers are 
I hope in all cases duly acknowledged. That they are 
fewer than might have been expected is a necessary 
result of the change which was required in the treatment of 
the subject owing to the form of modern controversy; and 



Preface. xi 

the same change will free me from the necessity of dis- 
eharo'W the unwelcome office of a critic. Yet it would 
be ungrateful not to bear witness to the accuracy and 
fulness of Lardner's ( Credibility ;' for, however imperfect 
it may be in the view which it gives of the earliest period 
of Christian literature, it is, unless I am mistaken, more 
complete and trustworthy than any work which has been 
written since on the same subject. 

There is however one great drawback to the study 
of Christian antiquity, so serious that I cannot but allude 
to it. The present state of the text, at least of the early 
Greek fathers, is altogether unworthy of an age which 
has done so much to restore to classic writers their ancient 
beauty ; and yet even in intellect Origen has few rivals. 
But it is perhaps as unreasonable as it is easy to com- 
plain; and I have done nothing more than follow Manu- 
script authority as far as I could in giving the different 
catalogues of the New Testament, I can only regret that 
I have not done so throughout; for — to take one example 
— the text of the Canons given in Mansi, as far as my 
experience goes, is utterly untrustworthy, while the ma- 
terials for determining a good one are abundant and easily 
accessible. 

During the slow progress of the Essay through the 
press several works have appeared of which I have been 
able to make little or no use. All that I wished to say on 
the Eoman and African Churches was printed before I 
saw Milman's Latin Christianity ; and of the second edi- 
tion of Bunsen's Hippolytus and his Age I have only 
been able to use partially the Analecta Ante-Niccena. 
It is however a great satisfaction to me to find that 
Dr Milman maintains that the early Roman Church was 

62 



xii Preface. 

essentially Greek ; a view which I believe to be as true 
as it is important, notwithstanding the remarks of his 
Dublin reviewer. 

It only remains for me to acknowledge how much ] 
owe to the kind help of friends in consulting books which 
were not within my reach. And I have further to offer 
my sincere thanks to the Rev. W. Cureton, Canon of 
Westminster, to the Rev. Dr Burgess of Blackburn, to 
Dr Tregelles of Plymouth, and to Mr T. Ellis of the Bri- 
tish Museum, for valuable information relative to Syriac 
Manuscripts; and likewise to the Rev. H. 0. Coxe of the 
Bodleian Library for consulting several Greek Manuscripts 
of the Canons contained in that collection. 



Harrow, 
July, 1855. 



• CONTENTS. 

Page 

INTRODUCTION . 1—14 

A general view of the difficulties which affected the formation 

and proof of the Canon . . . • . . 1 — 3 

i. The Formation of the Canon was impeded by : 

1. Defective means of communication • . . 4 

2. The existence of a traditional Rule of doctrine . . 5 
But the Canon was generally recognized at the close of the 

second century 6 

ii. The Proof of the Canon is affected by : 

1. The uncritical character of the early Fathers . . 7 

2. The casual nature of their evidence • . • .10 

3. The fragmentary state of early Christian literature . 1 1 
The Canon rests on the combined judgment of the Churches . . 12 



FIRST PERIOD a.d. 70—170. 
CHAPTER I. 

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
A.D. 70 — 120. 

The general character of the Sub -Apostolic Age conservative and yet 

transitional . . . . • . . . . .17 

The Epistolary Character of its Literature . . . . .18 

Its relation to the history of the Canon ...... ib. 

Section I. The relation of the Apostolic Fathers to the teaching 
of the Apostles. 
§ 1 . CLEMENT of Rome. 

His legendary history and office 20 

His first Epistle in relation to St Paul, St James, and St John 22 
The view which it gives of the position of the Christian Church 24 



xiv Contents. [part 

§2. IGNATIUS. 

The general characteristics of the Ignatian Epistles common to 
all the shorter Epistles and consistent with the position of 
Ignatius . . . . . . . . 27 

Their connexion with the teaching of St Paul as to Judaism 

(p. 31), and to the Church (ib.) ; and with St John . . 32 

§ 3. POLYCARP. 

His Epistle eminently Scriptural (p. 33). Its connexion with 

St Peter, and with the Pastoral Epistles . . . .34 
The special value of Polycarp's testimony . . 36 

§4. BARNABAS. ' 

The Epistle of Barnabas genuine, but not Apostolic or Canonical 37 
Its relation to the Epistle to the Hebrews, in regard to the mys- 
tical interpretation of Scripture (p. 39), and to the Mosaic 
Dispensation . . . . . . . . .41 

Section ll. The relation of the Apostolic Fathers to the 
Canon of the New Testament. 

How far their testimony was limited by their position ... 43 

Their testimony to 

(a) The Books of the New Testament, both explicit and inci- 
dental . . . . . . . . . .44 

They do not witness so much to written Gospels (p. 46), as 
to the great facts of Christ's Life ..... 47 

(/3) The authority of the Apostolic Writings . . . .48 

Modified both by their position and by the gradual recog- 
nition of the Doctrine of Inspiration . . . . ib. 

Still they all definitely place themselves below the Apostles 50 

CHAPTER II. 

THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 

A. D. I20 — 170. 

The wide range of Christian literature during this period ... 54 

Justin Martyr the true representative of the age . . . 55 
The work of the A pologists twofold, to determine the relations of 

Christianity to Heathendom, and to Judaism . . .56 

This latter work to be distinguished from the conflicts of the Apostolic 

age 58 

Christian literature still wholly Greek ; the effect of this . . ib. 



I.] Contents. xv 

.rage 

§ i. PAP IAS. 

His date (p. 59). The character of Hierapolis (p. 60). 
The true purpose of his Enarrations (p. 61). 
His testimony to the Gospels of St Matthew (p. 62), St Mark 
(p. 63), St John; to the Catholic Epistles, and to the Apo- 
calypse *.....•.... 65 
How it is that he does not allude to the Pauline writings . 66 

[The Martyrdom of Ignatius, p. 6y, n. 3]. 

§ 2. The Elders quoted by I venoms 68 

§ 3. The Evangelists in the reign of Trajan 70 

§ 4. The Athenian Apologists. 

QUADRATUS (p. 71) and ARISTIDES .... 72 

§ 5. The Letter to Diognetus. 

Its authorship (p. 74), compound character (p. 75), and date . 76 
Its testimony to the teaching of St Paul and St John (p. 77), 
to the Synoptic Gospels, and to other parts of the New Tes- 
tament ... 78 

The Gnostic element in the concluding fragment ... 79 
§ 6. The Jewish Apologists. 

The Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus: AR1ST0 of Pella its 

supposed author ........ 80 

AGRIPPA CASTOR 82 

§ 7. JUSTIN MARTYR. 

Some account of the studies, labours, and writings, of Justin . 83 
A general account of the relation of his books to the Gospels . 85 
L The general coincidence of Justin's Evangelic quotations 
with our Gospels, (1) in Facts (p. 88) : e.g. (a) The In-' 
fancy (ib), (/3) the Mission of John Baptist (p. 89) ; (7) 
the Passion (p. 90) ; and (2) in the account of our Lord's 
teaching (p. 91), both in language and in substance . 93 

II. Justin's special quotations from the Memoirs of the Apostles 

The quotations in the Apology (p. 96), and in the Dialogue 98 
Coincidences with St Matthew, St Mark, and St Luke . 99 
Justin's description of the Memoirs compared with Tertul- 
lian's description of the Gospels (p. 100) ; the substance of 
what he quotes from, and says of them . . . .101 

Objections to the identification of the Memoirs with the 

Gospels : 
I. No mention of their writers' names .... 102 
Yet the Gospels are often referred to anonymously 
(p. 103), as. are ajso the Prophets . . . .105 



xvi Contents. [part 

Page 

2. The quotations differ from the Canonical text . . .106 
Yet their character agrees with that of Justin's Old 

Testament quotations (p. 107) ; in which he both com- 
bines (p. 108), and adapts texts [Note A, p. 150] . 109 
Probable reasons for many of these variations [Note B, 

p. 152] in 

The identification justified by an examination 
(a) Of the express quotations from the Memoirs . 113 

(/3) Of the repetitions of the same peculiar reading . 117 
These various readings may be classed as synony- 
mous phrases (p. 119), glosses (p. 123), and com- 
binations, whether of words (p. 125), or of forms 
. (p. 126) ; and are illustrated by the text of certain 
Manuscripts, e.g. 

Codex D [Note C, p. 153] 128 

(7) Of the coincidences with Heretical Gospels . .129 
The differences from them are far more numerous 

and striking [Note D, p. 155] . . . . 136. 

3. The coincidences of Justin's narrative with Apocryphal 
Traditions ib. 

The Voice (p. 137), and Fire at the Baptism (p. 138); 
and other facts and words (p. 139), which are to 
be explained as exaggerations or glosses . . 141 

Summary of Justin's testimony (p. 142), in connexion with the 
Muratorian Canon and Trenasus (p. 144). How far he wit- 
nesses to the Gospel of St John and to the Apocalypse (p. 145); 
and to the writings of St Paul (p. 146), especially in quota- 
tions from the Old Testament . . . . . *47 
The testimony of the doubtful works attributed to Justin . 148 
§ 8. The Second Epistle of Clement. 

Probably a Homily 155 

A Gentile writing 156 

The peculiarity of its use of Scripture . . . .157 

[The two Epistles to Virgins, p. 162 n.] 
§ 9. DIONYSIUS of Corinth, and PINYTUS. 

"What Dionysius says of the preservation of Christian writings ; 

and how it bears on the New Testament . . . .164 
.His direct reference to the New Testament Scriptures (p. 166), 

and coincidences of language with different parts . .167 

Pinytus refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews .... ib. 
§ 10. HERMAS. 

The condition of the Church of Eome at the middle of the 

second century 168 



I.] Contents. xvii 

Page 

Its character represented by the Shepherd . . . . 1 70 

The history of the book (p. 171), its character (p. 173), in rela- 
tion to St James (p. 1 74) ; and its connexion with other 
books of Scripture . . . . . . . 175 

The Christology of Hennas in connexion with that of St John 

(p. 177)! He is falsely accused of Ebionism . . . 178 

§11. HEGESIPPUS. 

The supposed Ebionism of Hegesippus (p. 179), opposed to the 

testimony of Eusebius . . . . . . .180 

The character of his Memoirs in connexion with the Gospels 

(p. 181), and with Apocryphal books . . . .185 

§ 12. Tlic Muratorian Fragment— 3IELIT0— 

CLAUDIUS APOLLIXARIS. 

The date of the Muratorian Canon (p. 185"), its character (p. 
186), and its testimony to the Gospels (p. 187), to the Acts 
(p. 189), to the Epistles of St Paul {ib.\ and to the disputed 
Catholic Epistles ^p. 190). Its omissions, which however 
admit of an explanation . : . . . . .191 

Melito implies the existence of a Xew Testament, and illus- 
trates the extent of early Christian thought . . . 193 

His Treatise on Faith . . . . . . . .196 

Claudius Apollinaris shews that the Gospels were generally 

recognized ......... 198 

Summary . . . . . . . . . .199 



CHAPTER III. 

THE EARLY VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

How far they help to determine the Canon 203 

§ 1. ThePeshito. 

Its language, and probable origin (p. 205), Syrian traditions on 

the subject ......... 207 

The] difficulty of deciding these questions from the want of an 
early Syriac literature (ib.). Other Syriac Versions (p. 210 
n.). The Syrian Canon 112 

§ 2. TJie Old Latin Version. 

The Eoman Church originally Greek (p. 215), while Africa was 
the home of Latin Christian literature (p. 216), of which the 
Yetus Latina is the oldest specimen . . . . . 217 



xviii Contents. [part i. 

Pase 

The existence of such a version proved from Tertullian (p. 2 18). 
Augustine's testimony on the subject (p. 220), supported by- 
existing documents . . . . . . . .222 

The quotations in the Latin Version of Irenseus (p. 223). The 

Canon of the Vetus Latina coincides with that of Muratori 225 

The Manuscripts in which it is now found . . . ib. 

How far its influence can be traced in the present Vulgate . 229 

Application of this argument to the language of 2 Peter (p. 230), 

St James (p. 231), the Epistle to the Hebrews . . . 232 

The importance of the combined testimony of these early Ver- 
sions (p. 233) .234 



CHAPTER IY. 

THE EARLY HERETICS. 

The early heretics made no attack on the New Testament 
(p. 237) on historical grounds, as their adversaries remarked 
(p. 238), and though their testimony is partial it is progressive 239 
§ 1. The Heretical Teachers of the Apostolic Age. 

SIMON MAGUS (p. 240), and the Great Announcement . .241 

MENANDER (p. 242), and CERINTHUS (p. 243). Cerinthus 
acquainted with the writings of the New Testament (ib.). 
How the Apocalypse came to be ascribed to him (p. 244), 
and thence the other writings of St John .... 245 

The importance of early heretical teaching in relation to the 
New Testament (p. 246), as a link between it and later spe- 
culations . . ........ 247 

§ 2. The Ophites and Ebioniles. 

The rise of early sects (p. 248). The Ophites (p. 249), the Pera- 
tici and Sethiani (p. 250), of Hippolytus. What writings 
• the Ebionites received (p. 251). The testimony of the Cle- 
mentines 251 

§ 3. BASILIDES and ISIDORUS. 

The position (p. 253) and date of Basilides (p. 254). What 

books he used (p. 255); what he is said to have rejected . 257 

§ 4, CARPOCRATES ib. 

§ 5. • VALENTINUS. 

He received the same books as Catholic Christians (p. 259); but 
is said to have introduced verbal alterations (p. 260), and to 

have used another Gospel .261 

Other Gnostic Gospels 26a 



part il] Contents. xix 

§ 6. IIERACLEON. 

His Commentaries: the books they recognize . . . . 264 

§ 7. PTOLEMJEUS 266 

§ 8. The Marcosians. 

They used Apocryphal writings (p. 268), but also the Gos- 
pels (p. 260), and the writings of St Paul. . . .270 

§ 9. MARCION. 

The Canon of Marcion the earliest known .... 272 
His position (ib.), and date (p. 273). What books he receiv- 
ed [Note, p. 287] 273 

The text of his edition (p. 274), and the principles by which 

he was guided . . . . . . . .276 

§ 10. T ATI AN. 

The relation of Tatian to Marcion (p. 277). His importance. 

What Scriptures he recognizes 278 

An account of his Diatessaron 2 79 

General Summary of the First Part. 

i. The direct evidence fragmentary ; but wide, unaffected, uni- 
form, and comprehensive . . . . . . .283 

ii. The authenticity of the Canon a key to the history of the 

early Church . . 285 

Still (1) partial doubts remained as to certain books, and (2) the 

idea of a Canon was implied rather than expressed . .286 



SECOND PEEIOD. a.d. 170—303. 
CHAPTER I. 

THE CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS. 

Three stages in the advance of Christianity (p. 291). How they 
are connected (p. 292), and the bearing of this on the his- 
tory of the Canon . . . . . . . . 293 

On what grounds the Canon of Acknowledged Books rests . 294 

The testimony of (i.) the Gallican Church, The Epistle of the 

Churches of Vienne and Lyons (p. 295), IRENjEUS . . 296 

ii. The Alexandnne Church,— PANTJENUS (p. 297), CLE- 
MENT 298 



xx Contents. [paet II. 

Page 

iii. The African Church,— TERTULLIAN . . . .300 
All these writers appeal to antiquity (p. 301), and recognize a 

collection of sacred books . . ., . . . . 303 



CHAPTER II. 

THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE 
DISPUTED BOOKS. 

The question of the disputed books essentially historical (p. 305), 

a Deutero-Canon no solution of the problem . . . 306 
A summary of the evidence up to this point . 307 

§ 1. The Alexandrine Church— CLEMENT (p. 308). ORIGEN 
(p. 312) : his catalogues (ib.), and isolated testimonies in 
Greek (p. 316) and in Latin texts (p. 317). DIONYSIUS 
(p. 319). Later Alexandrine writers. ..... 320 

The Egyptian Versions . . . . . . . • 322 

§ 2. The Latin Churches of Africa. 

As to the Epistle to the Hebrews (p. 324), the Catholic Epistles 

(p. 326), the Apocalypse 327 

The Latin Canon defective, yet free from Apocryphal addi- 
tions 328 

§ 3. The Church of Rome. 

i. Latin writers— MINUCIUS FELIX, NOVATUS . .330 
ii. Greek writers,— DION YSI US, CAIUS (p. 331), HIPPO- 

LYTUS . 333 

§ 4. The Churches of Asia Minor. 

1. Ephesus. POLYCRATES (p. 334). APOLLONIUS . 335 

2. Smyrna. IRENuEUS . . . . . . . ib. 

3. Pontus. GREGORY of Neo-Caesarea (p. 337), 

FIRMILIAN (p. 338), METHODIUS .... 339 
The Asiatic Canon defective 340 

§ 5. The Churches of Syria. 

1. Antioch. THEOPHILUS (p. 341), SERAPION (p. 342), 

PAUL of Samosata (p. 343), DOROTHEUS and 
LUCIAN 344 

2. Ccesarea. PAMPHILUS 345 



PART in.] Contents. xxi 



CHAPTER III. 

THE TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL AND 
APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS. 

Page 

General connexion of the forms of heresy with the New Testa- 
ment ........... 340 

1. Controversies on the person of Christ 350 

1. Montanism . . . . . . . . -351 

3. Manichceism (p. 352). Use of Apocryphal Books by the 

Manichees . . . . . . . . . . 354 

The testimony of Apocryphal Writings. The Sibylline Oracles, 

and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs . . .. 355 

The testimony of heathen writers. Celsus, Porphyry . . 356 

General Summary of the Second PaH. 

The work of this period to construct, not define . . • 357 
The results of the former period confirmed by it . . -358 



THIRD PERIOD, a.d. 303—397. 
CHAPTER L 

THE AGE OF DIOCLETIAN. 

The persecution of Diocletian directed against the Christian 

books (p. 363), its results 364 

i. In Africa. The Donatists 365 

ii. In Syria. EUSEBIUS .366 

The importance of his testimony 376 



CHAPTER II. 

THE AGE OF COUNCILS, 

CONST ANTINE'S zeal for Holy Scripture (p. 378). The Scrip- 

ture as a rule of controversy (p. 379) accepted on all sides . 380 
The use of Scripture at the Council of Nicsea 381 



xxii Contents. [part 

Page 

The Synods which followed this Council: 

i. The Synod of Laodicea . . . . . . . 3S2 

The last Laodicene Canon (p. 383). Evidence as to its authen- 
ticity from (i) Greek manuscripts (p. 385), (2) Versions — 
Latin (p. 386), and Syriac (p. 387), (3) Systematic Arrange- 
ments of the Canons (ib.). Result . . . . 388 

ii. The third Council of Carthage. 

The Canon of the New Testament ratified there . . . 390 
How this Canon is supported by the testimony of Churches. 

i* The Churches of Syria. 

1. Antioch. Chrysostom (p. 392). Theodoee of Mopsu- 
estia (p. 393). Theodoret. ...«,. 394 

2. Nisibis. Junilius. Ebed Jesu ib. 

3. Edessa. Efhrem Syrus . . * . . .395 
Johannes Damascenus ib. 

ii. The Churches of Asia Minor. 

Gregory of Nazianzus. Amphilochius . . . 396 

Gregory of Nyssa and Basil 397 

Andrew and Arethas ib.. 

iii. The Church of Jerusalem. 

Cyril.* Epiphanius ........ 398 

iv. The Church of A lexandria. 

Athanasius (p. 398). Cyril. Isidore, Didymus. Eu- 

THALIUS 399 

v. The Church of Constantinople. 

Cassian. Leontius. Nicephorus . . ... . 400 

Photius. (EcUmenius. Theophylact . . * 401 

vi. The Churches of the West. 

Doubts as to the Epistle to the Hebrews (ib.). 

The Canon of Jerome (p, 402). Ambrose. 

Rufinus. Philastrius. Augustine . . . 404 

The mediaeval view of the Canon. 

Alfric (p. 406). 2?he Mpistle to the Laodicenes (p. 408). 
Hugo of St Victor (p. 412). John of Salisbury . .413 



CHAPTER III. 

THE SIXTEENTH CENTUKY. 

Various elements combined in the discussions on the Bible . -417 
The debate guided^ by fe o eling o more than criticism . . . .418 



ill.] Contents. xxiii 

Paga 

§ i. Tlie Roman Church. 

Cardinal Ximenes (p. 419). Erasmus (p. 420). Cardinal Cai- 
etan (p. 423). Catharinus (p. 425). The Council of Trent 
(ib.). Its decree on the Canon of Scripture (p. 426). Sixtus 
Senensis 427 

§ 2. The Saxon School of Reformers. 

Luther (p. 428). Karlstadt 433 

§ 3. The Swiss School of Reformers. 

ZwiNGLI (p. 435). (ECOLAMPADIUS (p. 436). CALVIN (ib.). 

Beza (p. 438). The Reformed Confessions (p. 439). The 
Swiss Declaration of 1675 442 

§ 4. The Arminian School. 

Grotius . 443 

§5. The English Church. 

Tyxdale (p. 444). The English Articles (p. 445). The 
opinions of the Eoglish Reformers: Jewel; Bullinger ; 
Whitaker; Fulke 447 

Conclusion .......... 448 



Appendices. 

App. A. On the history of the word ~Kav&v . . . . .451 

App. B. On the use of Apocryphal Writings in the early Church . 459 
App. C. The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon .... 466 

App. D. The chief Catalogues of the Rooks of the Bible daring the 

first Eight Centuries . . . . . . .481 

App. E. The Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodicenes . . . .521 

Ixdex I. List of the Authorities quoted in reference to the Canon of 

the New Testament 527 

Index II. A Synopsis of the Historical Evidence for the Boohs of 

the New Testament 530 



CORRIGENDA. 

p. 50 note. Refer to the Bible in the Church, App. A, 

p. 65. col. 2, note 4, 1. 10. For § 11 read § 12. 

p. 129, col. 2, 1. 4. For Peed. 11. read Peed. n. 30. 302. 



The truth of our Religion, like the truth of common matters, is to be judged 
by all the evidence taken together. 

Bp. Butler. 



A GENERAL survey of the History of the Canon forms ™{g^ 
a necessary part of an Introduction to the writings of A general HiSm 
the New Testament. A full examination of the objections canondittinct 
which have been raised against particular Books, a de-^^g^ 
tailed account of the external evidence by which they are **•*■*■ 
severally supported, an accurate estimate of the internal 
proofs of their authenticity, are indeed most needful; 
but, besides all this, it seems no less important to gain a 
wide and connected prospect of the history of the whole 
collection of the New Testament Scriptures, to trace the 
gradual recognition of a written Apostolic rule as authori- 
tative and divine, to observe the gradual equalization of 
'the Gospel and Epistles' with 'the Law and the Pro- 
' phets,' to notice the predominance of partial, though not 
exclusive, views in different Churches, till they were all 
harmonized in a universal Creed, and witnessed by a com- 
pleted Canon 1 . For this purpose we must frequently as- 
sume results which have been obtained elsewhere; but 
what is lost in fulness will be gained in clearness. A con- 
tinuous though rapid survey of the field on which we are 
engaged will bring out more prominently some of its great 
features, whose true effect is lost in the details of a minute 
investigation. 



■©■ 



1 By 'the Canon' I understand the Christian Faith. For the his- 

the collection of books which con- tory of the word see Appendix A. 
8titute the original written Rule of 

C. B 



Tlie History of the Canon 



INTRODTJC 
TION. 

Range of the 
enquiry. 



Especially 
necessary in 
relation to 
modern views, 



With this view it will be necessary to take into ac- 
count the intellectual and doctrinal development which 
was realized in the early Church. The books which are 
the divine record of Apostolic doctrine cannot be fitly con- 
sidered apart from the societies in which the doctrine was 
embodied. A mere series of quotations can convey only 
an inadequate notion of the real extent and importance of 
the early testimonies to the genuineness and authority of 
the New Testament. Something must be known of the 
nature and object of the first Christian literature — of the 
possible frequency of Scriptural references in such frag- 
ments of it as survive — of the circumstances and relations 
of the primitive Churches, before it is fair to assign any 
negative value to the silence or ignorance of individual 
witnesses, or to decide on the positive worth of the evi- 
dence which can be brought forward. 

The question of the Canon of Holy Scripture has 
assumed at the present day a new position in Theology. 
The Bible can no longer be regarded merely as a common 
storehouse of controversial weapons, or an acknowledged 
exception to the rules of literary criticism. Modern scho- 
lars, from various motives, have distinguished its consti- 
tuent parts, and shewn in what way each was related to 
the peculiar circumstances of its origin. Christianity has 
gained by the issue ; for it is an unspeakable advantage 
that the Books of the New Testament are now seen to be 
organically united with the lives of the Apostles: that 
they are recognized as living monuments, reared in the 
midst of struggles within and without by men who had 
seen Christ, stamped with the character of their age, and 
inscribed with the dialect which they spoke: that they 
are felt to be a product as well as a source of spiritual life. 
Their true harmony can only be realized after a perception 
of their distinct peculiarities. It cannot be too often re- 



of the Xew Testament. 3 

peated, that the history of the formation of the whole introduc- 
Canon involves little less than the history of the building 
of the Catholic Church. 

The common difficulties which beset any inquiry into it is hard to 

d x v realize the con- 

remote and intricate events are in this case unusually dmona of the 

d problem. 

great, since they are strengthened by the most familiar 
influences of our daily life. It is always a hard matter 
to lay aside the habits of thought and observation which 
are suggested by present circumstances ; and yet this is as 
essential to a just idea of any period as a full view of its 
external characteristics. It is not enough to have the 
facts before us unless we regard them from the right 
point of sight ; otherwise the prospect, however wide, must 
at least be confused. Our powers are indeed admirably 
suited to criticise whatever falls within their immediate 
range ; but they need a careful adjustment when they are 
directed to a more distant field. Moreover, remote objects 
are often surrounded by an atmosphere different from our 
own, and it is possible that they may be grouped together 
according to peculiar laws and subject to special influences. 
This is certainly true of the primitive Church ; and the 
differences which separate modern Christendom from an- 
cient Jerusalem or Alexandria or Home, morally and ma- 
terially, are only the more important, because they are 
frequently concealed by the transference of old words to 
new ideas. 

A little reflection will shew how seriously these diffi- 
culties have influenced our notions of early Christendom ; 
for the negative conclusions of some modern schools of 
criticism have found acceptance chiefly through a general 
forgetfulness of the conditions of its history. These must 
be determined by the characteristics of the age, which 
necessarily modify the form of our inquiry, and limit the 
extent of our resources. The results which are obtained 

B 2 



tion of the 
Canon was im 

yeded by 



4 The History of the Canon 

istroduc- from an examination of the records of the ante-Nicene 

TION. 

Church, as long as they are compared with what might be 
expected at present, appear meagre and inadequate ; but 
in relation to their proper sources they are singularly fer- 
tile. This will appear clearer by the examination of one 
or two particulars, which bear directly upon the formation 
and proof of the Canon. 

i. n* Forma- I. It cannot be denied that the Canon was fixed 
gradually. The condition of society and the internal re- 
lations of the Church presented obstacles to the immedi- 
ate and absolute determination of the question, which are 
disregarded now, only because they have ceased to exist. 
The tradition which represents St John as fixing the con- 
tents of the New Testament betrays the spirit of a later 
age 1 . 

(i) defective i. It is almost, impossible for any one whose ideas of 

means of com- . . , , , ., , -. 

miinicaiion, communication are suggested by the railway and the print- 
ing-press to understand how far mere material hinderances 
must have prevented a speedy and unanimous settlement 
of the Canon. The means of intercourse were slow and 
precarious. The multiplication of manuscripts in remote 
provinces was tedious and costly 2 . The common meeting- 
point of Christians was destroyed by the fall of Jerusalem, 
and from that time national Churches grew up around 

1 This tradition rests upon a mis- tions, which tend to shew that as 
understanding of what Eusebius says many as 60,000 copies of the Go- 
of the relation of St John's Gospel spels were circulated among Chris- 
to the former three (Hist. Eccl. in. tians at the end of the second cen- 
24; cf. VI. 14. Hieron. De Virr. III. 9). tury. Genuineness of the Gospels, I. 
The earliest trace of the narrative of pp. 28—34 (Ed. 2, 1847). Whether 
Eusebius occurs in the Muratorian the data on which this conclusion 
fragment (see App. C). rests are sound or not, it is certain 

2 This fact however has been that the production of large and 
frequently exaggerated. The circu- cheap editions of books at Rome 
lation of the New Testament Scrip- was usual. Compare W. A. Schmidt, 
tures was probably far greater than Geschichte der Denk- und Glaubens- 
is commonly supposed. Mr Norton freiheit im ersien Jahrhundert...des 
has made some interesting calcula- Christenthums (Berlin, 1847), c. v. 



of the JS r ew Testament 5 

their separate centres, enjoying in a great measure the introduc- 



tion. 

which tended 



freedom of individual development, and exhibiting, often 

in exaggerated forms, peculiar tendencies of doctrine or J? in&vidun- 

o ft ' r Uze churches, 

ritual. As a natural consequence, the circulation of dif- 
ferent parts of the New Testament for a while depended, 
more or less, on their supposed connexion w r ith specific 
forms of Christianity. 

This fact, which has been frequently neglected in though not to 

.—, , , . . , , . disunite them ; 

Church histories, has given some colour to the pictures 
which have been drawn of the early divisions of Christians. 
Yet the separation w r as not the result of fundamental dif- 
ferences in doctrine, but rather of temporary influences. 
It was not widened by time, but gradually disappeared. 
It did not cut off mutual intercourse, but vanished as in- 
tercourse grew more easy and frequent. The common 
Creed is not a compromise of principles, but a combination 
of the essential types of Christian truth which were pre- 
served in different Churches \ The New Testament is not 
an incongruous collection of writings of the Apostolic age, 
but the sum of the treasures of Apostolic teaching stored 
up in various places. The same circumstances at first- 
retarded the formation, and then confirmed the claims of 
the Catholic Church and of the Canon of Scripture. 

2. The formal declaration of the Canon was not hy and also (2) 

-, . -, r . . by the exist- 

any means an immediate and necessary consequence ot its enceo/atra- 
practical settlement. As long as the traditional Rule of V Doctrine, 
Apostolic doctrine was generally held in the Church, there 
was no need to confirm it by the written Rule. The dog- 
matic and constant use of the New Testament was not 
made necessary by the terms of controversy or the wants 
of the congregation. Most of the first heretics impugned 
the authority of Apostles, and for them their writings had 

1 A faint sense of this is shewn in different Clauses in the Creed to 
the late tradition which assigned the separate Apostles. 



6 The History of the Canon 

iNTRODuc- no weight. Most of the first Christians felt so practically 
the depth and fulness of the Old Testament Scriptures, 
that they continued to seek and find in them that comfort 
and instruction of which popular rules of interpretation 
have deprived us. 

which how- But in the course of time a change came over the 

ever nave way ° 

to a written condition of the Church. As soon as the immediate dis- 

Hule, 

ciples of the Apostles had passed away, it was felt that 
their traditional teaching had lost its direct authority. 
Heretics arose who claimed to be possessed of other tra- 
ditionary rules derived in succession from St Peter or St 
Paul 1 , and it was only possible to try their authenticity 
by documents beyond the reach of change or corruption. 
Dissensions arose within the Church itself, and the appeal 
to the written word of the Apostles became natural and 
decisive. And thus the practical belief of the primitive 
age was first definitely expressed when the Church had 
gained a permanent position, and a fixed literature. 
at least to- From the close of the second century the history of 

wards the close J J 

Cmiur? cond ^ e Canon is simple, and its proof clear. It is allowed 
even by those who have reduced the genuine Apostolic 
works to the narrowest limits, that from the time of 
. Irenasus the New Testament was composed essentially of 
the same books which we receive at present, and that 
they were regarded with the same reverence as is now 
shewn to them 2 . Before that time there is more or less 

• * Clem. Alex. Str. VII. 17, § 106, must read Mardiov (Clem. Al. Str. 

Kara) 5e" Trepi rovs 'Adpiavovrov (3ao~i- VII. 17, § 108). 

\eus xpb vov * oi rds alptaeis eirivor)- 2 It will be well once for all to 

(retires yeybvaci koX p-expi 7^ ttjs give a general view of the opinion of 

' 'kvTwvlvov rod Trpeo~f$vT€pov diereivav the most advanced critics of Tubin- 

i)\udas Kaddirep 6 BaaiXddrjs, kclv gen on the canonical books of the 

TXavfdai/ iirtypd(pTjTai 8tf5cto"/caXo^, New Testament, and their relation 

ws avxovcnu avrol, rhv llcrpov epfirj- to early Christian literature. Ac- 

vea' o)o~aijT(x)s de Kai OvaXevrwov cording to Schwegler they may be 

Qeodddi &K7)Koii>ai (pepovaiv, ypdopipios arranged as follows : 
ft' ovtos 7676m UatiXov. Cf. [Hipp.] i. Genuine and Apostolic. 

adv. Hcereses, vir. 20, where we 1. Ebionitic : 



of the Neiu Testament 7 

difficulty in making out the details of the question, and nrraoguc- 
the critic's chief endeavour must be to shew how much 
can be determined from the first, and how exactly that 
coincides with the clearer view which is afterwards gained. 

II. Here however we are again beset with peculiar >t The Proof 

° n of the Canon is 

difficulties. The proof of the Canon is embarrassed both rendered more 

x difficult 



The Apocalypse. 
7. Pauline: 

Epp. to the Corinthians 

(Lit) 

Ep. to Romans (capp.i. — xiv.) 
Ep. to Galatians. 
ii. Original sources of the Gos- 
pels : 
i. Ebionitic. The Gospel ac- 
cording to the Hebrews. 
St Matthew, a revision of 
this (a. C. 130 — 134. Baur, 
Kan. Evv. s. 609, anm.) 
2. Pauline. The Gospel adopted 
by Marcion. (Probably : 
Schwegler, Nachap. Zeit. 
I. 284.) 
St Luke. 
iii. Supposititious writings forged 
for party purposes. 

1. Ebionitic: 

(a) Conciliatory: 
Ep. of St James (c. 150 
A. c. Schwegler, I. s. 443). 
The Clementine Homi- 
lies. 
The Apostolical Consti- 
tutions. 
Clement, Ep. ii. 
(ft) Neutral: 

St Mark (late; after St 

Matthew: Bam-, 561). 
2 Ep. St Peter (c. 200 
A. C. Schwegler, 1. 495). 
Ep. StJuDE(late, id. 521). 
Clementine Recogni- 
tions, 

2. Pauline: 

(a) Apologetic: 
1 Ep. Peter (c. i 15. Schweg- 
ler, 11. 3). 

Krjpvyfia Uirpov. 
(/3) Conciliatory: 



St Luke (c. 100 a. c. Schweg- 
ler, 11. 72). 
The Acts (same date, id. 

s. 115). 
Ep. to Romans, capp. xv., 
xvi. (same date, id. 3.123'). 
Ep. to Philippians (c. 130 \ 
id. s. 133). 

Clement, Ep. i. 
(7) Constructive (Katholisir- 

end) : 
. The Pastoral Epistles ( r 30 
■ — 150 a. c. Schwegler, 
II. 138). 

Ep. of Poly carp. 
Epp. of Ignatius. 
3. A peculiar Asiatic develop- 
ment : 

Ep. to Hebrews (c. 100 

A.C. Schwegler, II. 309). 

Ep. to Colossians (a little 

later, id. s. 289). 
Ep. to Ephesians (a little 

later, id. s. 291). 
Gospel and Epistles (?) of 
St John (c. 150. Schweg- 
ler, id. s. 169; Baur, 
350 ff). 
It will be at once evident how 
much critical sagacity lies at the 
base of this arrangement, apart from 
its historic impossibility. 

The Epistles to the Thessa- 
lonians and to Philemon are re- 
jected, but Schwegler does not give 
any explanation of their origin. 

[Schwegler's theory has been va- 
riously modified by later writers of 
the Tubingen school, but it still re- 
mains the most complete embodiment 
of the spirit of the school, in which 
relation alone we have to deal with 

it.] - 



8 The History of the Canon 

introduc- by the general characteristics of the age in which it was 
fixed, and by the particular form of the evidence on which 
it first depends. 

(i)bytheunr i. The spirit of the ancient world was essentially 

critical cha- ... . . . . 

meter of the uncritical, it is unfair to speak as it Christian writers 

Jirst two centtir . . 

&** were m any way specially distinguished by a want of 

sagacity or research. The science of history is altogether 
of modern date; and the Fathers do not seem to have 
been more or less credulous or uninformed than their 
pagan contemporaries 1 . Their testimony must be tried 
according to the standard of their age. We must be 
content to ground our conclusions on such evidence as 
the case admits, and to interpret it according to its pro- 
per laws. 
shewn in the One important example will illustrate the application 

^hafbiuksT J ~ °f these principles. As soon as the Christian Church had 
gained a firm footing in the Roman Empire it required 
what might be called an educational literature ; and an 
attempt was made at an early period to supply the want 
by books which received in a certain degree the sanction 
of the Church. When this sanction was once granted, it 
became necessarily difficult to define its extent and dura- 
tion. The ecclesiastical writings of the Old Testament 
furnished a precedent and an excuse for a similar ap- 
pendix to the Christian Scriptures. Both classes seem to 
have been formed from the same motive : both found 
their readiest acceptance at Alexandria. 'Apocryphal' 
writings were added to manuscripts of the New Testa- 
ment, and read in churches ; and the practice thus begun 
. continued for a long time. The Epistle of Barnabas was 
still read among the ' Apocryphal Scriptures ' in the time 

1 E. g. Clement's name is in- ened by the fact that he introduces 

variably coupled with the legend of the same story among the most 

the Phceuix (c. xxv.), but it does not tragic incidents (An. VI. 28). 
appear that Tacitus' credit is weak- 



of the Xew Testament. 9 

ol Jerome; a translation of the Shepherd of Hennas is ixtroduc- 
ibund in a MS. of the Latin Bible as late as the fifteenth 
century 1 ; the spurious Epistle to the Laodicenes is found 
very commonly hi English copies of the Vulgate from the 
ninth century downwards ; and an important catalogue of 
the Apocrypha of the New Testament is added to the 
Canon of Scripture subjoined to the Chronographia of Ni- 
cephorus, published in the ninth century. 

At first sight this mixture of different classes of books ^optdicitt 
appears startling; but the Church of England follows the S^K by 
same principle with regard to the Apocrypha of the Old hut 
Testament. They are allowed to have an ecclesiastical 
use, but not a canonical authority. They are profitable 
for instruction — for elementary teaching (arot^e {coats elaa- 
jcoyt/crj) as is said 2 of the Shepherd of Hernias — but not 
for the proof of doctrine. And it was in this spirit that 
Apocrypha of the New Testament were admitted with 
reserve in many Christian Churches. ' They ought to be 
'read/ it was said, ' though they cannot be regarded as apo- 
'stolic or prophetic 3 .' And evidence is not wanting to shew 
that the ancient Church exercised a jealous watch lest 
supposititious writings should usurp undue influence. The 
presbyter who sought to recommend the story of Thecla 
by the name of St Paul was degraded from his office 4 . 

But the first Christian writers — and here again the carelessly by 

individual 

parallel with our own divines still holds — did not always writers, ua 
shew individually the caution and judgment of the Church. 
They quote ecclesiastical books from time to time as if 
they were canonical : the analogy of the faith was to them 
a sufficient warrant for their immediate use. As soon 

1 Anger, Synopsis Evangg. p. xxiv. follows the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
In this MS. it stands between the 2 Euseb. //. E. in. 3, p. 90. 

Psalms and Proverbs. In the very ' 6 Fragm. Murat. de Canone, s. f., 

remarkable Latin MS. known in speaking of Hermas. 

the New Testament as g l (Bibl. ' 4 Tertull. de Bapt. c. 15. 
Imp. Paris. S. Germ. Lat. 86) it 



our 



10 The History of the Canon 

iNTRODuc- however as a practical interest attached to the question 
of the Canon their judgment was clear and unanimous. 

the question ° ° 

assumed a When it became necessary to determine what 'super- 

practical im- . . 

vortance: 'fluous ' books might be yielded to the Roman inquisitor 1 
without the charge of apostasy, the Apocryphal writings 
sunk at once into their proper place. There was no 
change of opinion here ; but that definite enunciation of 
it which was not called forth by any critical feeling within 
was conceded at last to a necessity from without. The 
true meaning of the earliest witnesses is brought out by 
the later comment 2 . 

( 2 ) by the ca- 2 . This fact suggests a second difficulty by which the 

sual nature of ... 00 J J 

evidence, subject is affected : the earliest testimonies to the Canon 
are simply incidental. Now even if the -ante-Nicene Fa- 
thers had been gifted with an active spirit of criticism — if 
their works had been left to us entire — if the custom of 
formal reference had prevailed from the first — it would 
still be impossible to determine the contents of the New 
1 Testament absolutely on merely casual evidence. Ante- 
cedently there is no reason to suppose that we shall be 
able to obtain a perfect view of the judgment of the 
Church on the Canon from the scriptural references con- 
tained in the current theological literature of any par- 
ticular period. The experience of our own day teaches us ' 
that books of Holy Scripture, if not whole classes of books, 
may be suffered to fall into disuse from having little 
connexion with the popular views of religion. As a gene- i 
ral rule, quotations have a value positively, but not nega- 
tively : they may shew that a writing was received as 
authoritative, but it cannot fairly be argued from this 
fact alone that another which is not quoted was unknown 
or rejected as apocryphal. 

1 In the persecution of Diocletian. 2 See Appendix B. On the use of 

See below, Part iii. c. 1. Apocryphal writings in the early 

Church. 



of the New Testament 11 

Still, though the use of Scripture is in a great degree introduc- 
dependent on the character of the controversies of the day, 

r ^ * which must be 

the argument from quotations obtains a new weight in combined with 

O ■ T. O l aier ca i a . 

connexion with formal catalogues of the New Testament, logues: 
It is impossible not to admit that a general coincidence of 
the range of patristic references with the limits elsewhere 
assigned to the Canon confirms and settles them. And in 
this way the history of the Canon can be carried up. to 
times when catalogues could not have been published, but 
existed only implicitly in the practice of the Churches. 

3. The track however which we have to follow is f ld & h y lYs 

O fragmentary 

often obscure and broken. The evidence of the earliest character - 
Christian writers is not only uncritical and casual, but is 
also fragmentary. A few letters of consolation and warn- 
ing, two or three Apologies addressed to Heathen, a con- 
troversy with a Jew, a Vision, and a scanty gleaning of 
fragments of lost works, comprise all Christian literature 1 
to the middle of the second century. And the Fathers of 
the next age were little fitted by their work to collect the 
records of their times. Christianity had not yet become a 
history, but was still a life. In such a case it is obviously 
unreasonable to expect that multiplicity of evidence and 
circumstantial detail which may be brought to bear upon 
questions of modern date. With our present resources 
there must be many unoccupied spots in the history of the 
Church, which give room for the erection of hypotheses, 
plausible though false. But this follows from the nature 
of the ground : and the hypotheses are tenable only so 
long as they are viewed without relation to the great lines 
of our defence. The strength of negative criticism lies in 
ignoring the existence of a Christiarj society from the apo- 
stolic age, strong in discipline, clear in faith, and jealous of 
innovation. 

1 To these may perhaps be added tines and the Apostolical Canons 
the original elements of the Clemen- and Constitutions, 



12 



The History of the Canon 



INTRODUC- 
TION. 

But the forma- 
tion and proof 
of the Canon 
must be refer- 
red to the judg- 
ment of the 
luhole Christ- 
ian body, 



shewn in the 
testimony of 
individuals, 



and popular 
language 
and rites. 



It is then to the Church, as ' a witness and keeper of 
' holy writ/ that we must look both for the formation and 
the proof of the Canon. The written Rule of Christendom 
must rest finally on the general confession of the Church, 
and not on the independent opinions of its members. 
Private testimony in itself is only of secondary import- 
ance : its chief value lies in the fact that it is a natural 
expression of the current opinion of the time. 

It is impossible to insist on this too often or too earn- 
estly. Isolated quotations may be in themselves unsatis- 
factory, but as embodying the tradition of the Church, 
generally known and acknowledged, they are of inestim- 
able worth. To make use of a book as authoritative, to 
assume that it is apostolic, to quote it as inspired, without 
preface or comment, is not to hazard a new or independ- 
ent opinion, but to follow an unquestioned judgment. It 
is unreasonable to treat our authorities as mere pieces or 
weights, which may be skilfully manoeuvred or combined, 
and to forget that they are Christian men speaking to 
fellow Christians, as members of one body, and believers 
in one Creed 1 . The extent of the Canon, like the Order 
of the Sacraments, was settled by common usage, and 
thus the testimony of Christians becomes the testimony 
of the Church. 

There is however still another way in which we may dis- 
cern from the earliest time the general belief of Christians 
respecting the Canon. The practical convictions of great 
masses find their peculiar expression in popular language 
and customs. Words and rites thus possess a weight and 
authority quite distinct from the casual references or deli- 
berate judgments of individuals, so far as they convey the 



1 This is very well argued by 
Thiersch in his Versuch zuv Her- 
stetlung des historischen Standpuncts 
fur die Kritik der^N. T, Schriften y 



ss. 305, ff. ; and in his answer to 
Baur, Einige Worle iiber die Aeclt- 
theit der N. T. Schriften. Erlangeu, 
1846, 



of the Kew Testament 13 

judgment of the many. If then it can be shewn that the ixtropuc- 
earliest forms of Christian doctrine and phraseology ex- 
actly correspond with the different elements preserved in 
the Canonical Epistles, and that tradition preserves no 
trace of opinions not recognized in the Scriptures, and 
that the Scriptures consecrate no belief which is not seen 
| embodied in Christian life; it will be reasonable to con- 
clude that the coincidence implies a common source : and 
that the written books and the traditional words equally 
represent the general sum of essential apostolic teach- 
i ing: and in proportion as the correspondences are more 
I subtle and intricate, this proof of the authenticity of our 
books will be more convincing 1 . 

Such appear to be the characteristics and conditions of Recapituia- 
the evidence by which the Canon must be determined. 
When these are clearly seen and impartially taken into 
account, it will be possible, and possible only then, to 
arrive at a fair conclusion upon it. It is equally unrea- 
sonable to prejudge the question either way, for it ought 
to be submitted to a just and searching criticism. But if 
it can be shewn that the Epistles were first recognized 
exactly in those districts in which they would naturallv 
be first known; that from the earliest mention of them 
they are assumed to be received by Churches, and not 
recommended only by private authority; that the Canon 
as we receive it now was fixed in a period of strife and 
controversy ; that it was generally received on all sides ; 
that even those who separated from the Church and 
, cast aside the authority of the New Testament Scriptures 

1 This will explain how much by Apostolic tradition. The Canon 
truth there is in the common state- of Scripture and the 'Canon of 
ment that Doctrine was the test of Truth' were alike independent, but 
Canonicity. It is just as incorrect necessarily coincided in their con- 
to say that the doctrine of the Church tents as long as they both retained 
was originally drawn from Scripture, their original purity, 
as to say that Scripture was limited 



14 The History of the Canon. 

ixteoduc- did not deny their genuineness: if it can be shewn that 

TION 

the first references are perfectly accordant with the ex- 
press decision of a later period ; and that there is no trace 
of the general reception of any other books : if it can be 
shewn that the earliest forms of Christian doctrine and 
phraseology exactly correspond with the different elements 
preserved in the Canonical Epistles ; it will surely follow 
that a belief so widely spread throughout the Christian 
body, so deeply rooted in the inmost consciousness of the 
Christian Church, so perfectly accordant with all the facts 
which we do know, can only be explained by admitting 
that the books of the New Testament are genuine and 
Apostolic, a written Rule of Christian Faith and Life. 

The whole history of the formation of the Canon of 
the New Testament may be divided into three periods. 
Of these the first extends to the time of Hegesippus (A. D. 
70 — 170) ; the second to the persecution of Diocletian (a.d. 
I 7° — 3°3); an d the last to the third Council of Carthage 
(A.D. 303 — 397). Later speculations on the question in 
part belong more properly to special introductions to the 
different books, and in part are merely the perpetuation 
of old doubts. But each of these periods marks some real 
step in the progress of the work. The first includes the 
era of the separate circulation and gradual collection of 
the Sacred Writings : the second completes the history of 
their separation from the mass of ecclesiastical literature : 
the third comprises the formal ratification of the current 
belief by the authority of councils. 

Something has been already said of the various diffi- 
culties which beset the inquiry, especially during the first 
period. An examination of the testimony of Fathers, 
Heretics, and Biblical Versions, will next shew how far it 
can be brought to a satisfactory issue. 



FIRST PERIOD. 

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
TO THE TIME OF HEGESIPPUS. 

A.D. 70 — 170. 



4>6BOC NOMOY AA6TAI KAI npOC()HTa>N X^P'C PNCOCK€TAI KAI 

eyArreAiooN niCTic fApyTAi kai attoctoAcon HApAAocic c()yAac- 

C6TAI KAI 6KKAHCIAC \ApiC CKipTA. 

Ep. ad Diognetum. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE AGE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
A.D. 70 — 120. 



Heaven lies about us in our infancy. 

Wordsworth. 



THE condition of the Church immediately after the CHAP L 
Apostolic age was not such as to create or require a The sub-m »■ 
literature of its own. Men were full of that anxious expec- sercauhe, 
tation which always betokens some critical change in the 
world ; but the elements of the new life were not yet com- 
bined and brought into vigorous operation 1 . There was 
nothing either within or without to call into premature 
activity the powers and resources which were still latent 
in the depths of Christian truth. The authoritative teach- 
ing of Apostles was fresh in the memories of their hearers. 
That first era of controversy, in which words are fitted to 
the ideas for which they are afterwards substituted, had 
not yet passed by. The struggle between Christianity and 
Paganism had not yet assumed the form of an internecine 
war 2 . The times were conservative, not creative. 

But in virtue of this conservatism the sub-apostolic alt!u anSi ' 

1 The well-known passages of 67, the most probable date of the 

Virgil (Eel. IV.), Tacitus (Hist v. martyrdom of St Paul. 

13), and Suetonius (Vesp. c. 4), ex- 2 Christianity as yet appeared to 

press this feeling in memorable strangers only as'a form of Judaism, 

words. Percrebuerat Oriente toto, even where St Paul preached, and 

says the last writer, vet us et constans consequently was a religio Ucita. 

opinio esse in fatis ut eo tempore Cf. Gieseler, Kirchcngesckichte, I. 

Judmd profecti rerum potircntur. 106, and his references. 
The year of which he speaks is A.D. 

c v« c 



18 The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 



chap. i. age, though distinguished, was not divided from that 
which preceded it. It was natural that a break should 
intervene between the inspired Scriptures and the spon- 
taneous literature of Christianity, between the teaching 
of Apostles and the teaching of philosophers; but it was 
no less natural that the interval should not be one of total 
silence. Some echoes of the last age still lived : some voices 
of the next already found expression. In this way the writ- 
ings of the Apostolic Fathers are at once a tradition and a 
prophecy. By tone and manner they are united to the Scrip- 
tures ; for their authors seem to instruct, and not to argue ; 
and at the same time they prepare us by frequent exag- 
gerations for the one-sided systems of the following age. 
its literature The form of the earliest Christian literature explains 

all epistolary. . . . . . . x - 

its origin and object, lhe writings of the first fathers 
are not essays, or histories, or apologies, but letters 1 . 
They were not impelled to write by any literary motive, 
nor even by the pious desire of shielding their faith from 
the attacks of its enemies. An intense feeling of a new 
fellowship in Christ overpowered all other claims. As 
members of a great household — as fathers or brethren — 
they spoke to one another words of counsel and warning, 
and so found a natural utterance for the faith and hope 
and love which seemed to them the sum of Christian life. 
The evidence With regard to the History of the Canon the Apostolic 

of the Apcsto- o «/ j. 

uc Fathers for Fathers occupy an important place, undesignedly it may 
• be, but not therefore the less surely. Their evidence in- 
deed is stamped with the characteristics of their position, 

direct and and implies more than it expresses ; but even directly they 
say much. Within the compass of a few brief letters they 
shew that the writings of the Apostles were regarded from 
the first as invested with singular authority, as the true 
expression, if not the original source, of Christian doctrine 

1 Cf. Moliler, Patrologie, s. 50. 



I.] The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. 19 

and Christian practice. And more than this : they prove chap, l 
that it is unnecessary to have recourse to later influences indirect, 
to explain the existence of peculiar forms of Christianity 
which were coeval with its reception in the world. In a 
word, they establish the permanence of the elements of 
the Catholic faith, and mark the beginnings of a written 
Canon. 

The first point must be examined with care; for it is in their pre- 

ppi •• r>xi servatwn of 

very needful to notice the proofs of the continuity of the theApostoUc 

p /-n-i • • -i • • i types of doc- 

representative forms of Christian doctrine at a time when trine 

it has been supposed to have undergone strange changes. 

Many have rightly perceived that the reception of the 

Canon implies the existence of one Catholic Church; and 

conversely, if we can shew that the distinct constituents 

of Catholicity were found in Christendom from the first 

age, we confirm the authenticity of those books which 

severally surest and sanction them. It is true that these though often in 

J °° t m an exaggerated 

different types of teaching are at times arbitrarily expand- form. 
ed in the uncanonical writings without any regard to their 
relative importance, but still they are essentially un- 
changed; and by the help of patristic deductions we may 
see in what way the natural tendencies which give rise to 
opposing heresies are always intrinsically recognized in the 
teaching of the universal Church. The elements of Holy 
Scripture are so tempered that though truly distinct 
they combine harmoniously; elsewhere the same elements 
are disproportionately developed, and in the end mutually 
exclude each other 1 . 

1 In studying the writings of the (A.) Die Clementinen, Hamburg, 

early Fathers much help may be 1844. Dorner (J. A.) Die Lehre 

gained from the following works (in von der Person Christi, Stuttgart, 

addition to the Church histories), by 1S45— 53- Schwegler (A.) Das 

which I have sought to try and to nachapostoHsche Zeitalter, Tubingen , 

correct my own views : Bothe (R.) 1S46. Lechler (G. Y.) Das apo- 

Die Anfdnge d. Ckristlichen Kirche stolisehe und nachapostolUche Zeit- 

...1837. Mohler(J. A.) Patrologie, alter, Haarlem, 1851, 2te Ann. 

Eegensburg, 1840. Schliemann 1857. Hit schl, Die Entstehung der 

C 2 



» 



20 The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 

chap. I. 

Sect. I. The Kelation of the Apostolic Fathers 
to the Teaching of the Apostles. 

§ i. Clement of Rome. 

The legendary The liistory of Clement of Rome is invested with a 
me\ti. y ° e ~ mythic dignity, which is without example in the ante- 
Nicene Church 1 . The events of his life have become so 
strangely involved in consequence of the religious ro- 
mances which bear his name, that they must remain in 
inextricable confusion; and even- apart from this, there 
can be little doubt that traditions which belong to very 
different men were soon united to confirm the dignity of 
the successor of St Peter 2 . There is however no reason 
to question the belief that he was an immediate disciple 
of the Apostles, and overseer of the Church of Rome 3 ; 
but beyond this all is doubtful 4 . It is uncertain whether 
he was of Jewish or heathen descent 5 : he is called at one 
time the disciple of St Paul, and again of St Peter 6 : the 

alt-KatholiscJicn Kirche, ite Aufl. iroXkol vireKelirovTO rbre virb tQp 

Bonn, 1857. Hilgenfeld (A.) Die airoaroXiov dediday/uihoL. The pas- 

apostolischen Vater f Halle, 1853. sage is a singular testimony to the 

Reuss (E.) Histoire de la Theologie intense vividness of the impression 

Chretienne au Siecle Apostolique, produced by the Apostolic preaching 

ime Ed. i860. Lange (J. P.) Das and to the multiplicity of personal 

' ApostoliscJie Zeitalter ... 1854. Do- evidence by which it was attested. 

Naldson (J.) A Critical History of 4 The various traditions are dis- 

Christian Literature and Doctrine .. . cussed with great candour in Do- 

Vol. 1. 1865. naldson, 1. pp. 90 ff. 

1 Cf. Schliemanu, 118 ff. 5 The former alternative seems to 

2 For instance, he was identified be supported by his Epistle in which 
with Flavius Clemens, a cousin of he speaks of the Patriarchs as ' our 
Domitian, who was martyred at Fathers' (cc. 4, 3 r, 55): the latter is 
Home. Schliemann, 109. adopted in the Clementines, and 

3 Iren. c. Beer. in. 3 (Euseb. H.E. maintained by Hefele, Patrr. App. 
V.6), Tpiroj Tdircp dVd tlou dirocrToKwv xix. ff. 

rrjv eirLaKoiry]v (of the Roman Church) 6 The former opinion is grounded 

nXrjpouTai KXrjfxrjs, 6 Kal ewpaKws rovs on Phil. iv. 3 (cf. Jacobson, ad Clem. 

/jiaKapiovs diroaToXovs /cat <tv/jl(3€(3\t]- vit. not. b) ; the latter is found in 

K(bs avToh Kal in Zvavkov to Kr)pvy/xa the Clementines, and, from them, 

tQ)v airovToKuv koli tt)v irap&b'ocn.v in Origen, Philoc. c. 23, and later 

irpd oepdaXjAQv e'xwj/ ov /jlgvos, £ti yap writers. Schliemann, 120. 



I.] Clement of Rome. 21 

order of his episcopate at Rome is disputed 1 ; and yet, chap, l 
notwithstanding these ambiguities, it is evident that he 
exercised a powerful and lasting influence. In fact, he 
lost his individuality through the general acknowledg- 
ment of his representative character in the history of the 
Church. 

Writings which were assigned to the authorship of writings «*■ 
Clement gained a wide circulation in the East and West. Slffm 
Two Syriac Epistles were published under his name by 
Wetstein 2 . The Clementines, in spite of their tendency, 
remain entire, to represent the unorthodox literature of 
the first ages 3 . The Canons and Constitutions which claim 
his authority became part of the law-book of Christians 4 . 
Two Greek epistles, claiming to be his, are appended to 
one of the earliest manuscripts of the Bible in existence 5 . 

The historical position of Clement is illustrated by the His trad;tl - 0)l , 
early traditions which fixed upon him as the author of the al °^ ce ' 
Epistle to the' Hebrews 6 , and of the Acts of the Apostles 7 . 
Subsequently he is charged with a two-fold office: he ap- 
pears as the mediator between the followers of St Paul 
and St Peter, and as the lawgiver of the Church. Thus 
his testimony becomes of singular value, as that of a man 
to whom the first Christian society assigned its organi- 
zation and its catholicity. 

The first Greek Epistle alone can be confidently pro- 

1 The chief authorities are quoted 5 See App. B. In addition to the 
by Hefele, I. c. letters of Clement, the Cod. Alex. 

2 Cf. Jacobson, ad Clem. R. vit. contains also three beautiful Chris- 
note 1. Mbhler, ss. 67 sqq. Mohler tian hymns, one of which is the 
defends their authenticity, which Greek original of the Gloria in ex- 
Neander thinks possible {Ch. H. II. ce.lsis of our own Liturgy. Cf. Bunsen, 
441). Ilippolytus, ni. 133 sqq. Their ex- 

3 Schliemann gives a very full istence in the MS. proves no more 
account of them 150 ff. (the Ho- than their ecclesiastical use. 

milies) ; -265 ff. (the Recognitions). 6 On the authority of Origen ap. 

4 Cf. Bunsen' s Eippolytus, in. 145 Euseb. H. E. vi. -25. 

sqq. (the Canons) ; II. 220 sqq., and 7 Photius (quoted by Credner, 

App. (the Constitutions). Einleit. 271) mentions this tradition. 



22 



The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 



chap. i. nounced genuine 1 . The relation of this to our Canonical 
The relation of Books is full of interest. In its style, in its doctrine, and 
stu to the ca- in its theory of Church government, it confirms the genu- 

nonical Books, . „ , . -i-ii r» i -*t m 2 

meness of disputed books of the JNew lestament . 

(a) in style, The language of the Epistle of St Peter has been sup- 

posed to be inconsistent with the distinctive character- 
istics of the Apostle. Now, according to the most probable 
accounts, Clement was a follower of St Peter; and the 
tone of his Epistle agrees with that of his master in ex- 
hibiting the influence of St Paul. This influence extends to 
peculiarities of language. Sometimes Clement uses words 
found only in St Peter's Epistles: more frequently those 
common to St Peter and St Paul ; while his verbal coinci- 
dences with St Paul are both numerous and striking 3 . 

(P)in doctrine., Again, the Epistle of Clement takes up a catholic po- 

* sition in the statement of doctrine, which shews that the 

supplementary views contained in the New Testament 



1 Schwegler — following some ear- 
lier writers — has called in question 
the genuineness of the letter without 
any good ground (Nachap. Zcit. 11. 
125 sqq.). He has been answered 
by Bunsen, Ritschl, and others. Cf. 
Lechler, Apost. Zcit. 309 n. 

Its integrity appears to be as un- 
questionable as its genuineness. At 
the close of c. 57 a lacuna occurs in 
the MS. P. Young, who probably 
had sufficient means of knowing the 
fact, says that a whole leaf has been 
lost. Compare Jacobson in loc. 

The second Epistle is probably 
part of a homily, but the question 
must be examined afterwards. 

2 The date of Clement's letter is 
disputed, for it depends on the order 
of his Episcopate. Hefele (p. xxxv.) 
places it at the close of the persecu- 
tion of Nero (a.d. 68—70). The 
later date (circ. 95) seems more pro- 
bable. 

3 The following examples, which 
are taken from among many that 



I have noticed, will illustrate the 
extent and character of this con- 
nexion : 

(a) Coincidence with St Peter in 
words not elsewhere found in 
the Epp. or PP. App. : 
dyadoiroua — ddeXcpdrvs — woe- 
Ijlvlov. (Perhaps no more.) 
(]8) With St Peter and St Paul : 
ay ddrj avueid^ffLS — dyiaafjios — 
el\LKpivr,s — ew^fta — evirpoa- 
deKTos — TaireLvocppoavvT] — vwa- 
kotj — viro(p€p€Lv — <pL\a5e\(pia 

— (piXoijevia, <pi\6£ei>os. 
(7) With St Paul : 

apL€Tajj.^\r)Tos — iyKpareveaPai 
— Xeirovpyds, Xeirovpyia, \ei- 
Tovpyelv — ixaKOLfiafibs — oik- 
TLfpLoi — iroXtrela, iroXiTtveiv 
(used by Polyc.)— o~€fj.i'6s ) crcpL- 

(5) Peculiar to Clement : 

aULa — &\\oiovi> — dirovoia — 
(3ov\r)ais — Ik€T€u€ii> — KaWovy 

— /xiapbs — pLvaapos — 7ra/U,ue- 
yedrjs — iravdyios — wcu'dperos. 



I.] Clement of Rome. 23 

had in his time been placed in contrast, and now re- chap. t. 
quired to be combined. The theory of justification is 
stated in its antithetical fulness. The same examples are 
used as in the Canonical Epistles, and the teaching of • 
St Paul and St James is coincidently. affirmed. 'Through influence of 
'faith and hospitality (8ia tcicttlv koli (frckofjeviav) a son was 
'given to Abraham in old 'age, and by obedience (81 
1 irirafcofjs) he. offered him a sacrifice to God.' 'Through 
'faith and hospitality Rahab was saved (ea-ooOrj 1 ). 9 'We 
' are not justified by ourselves (h£ eatrr&5z/)...nor by works 
'which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by our 
'faith (Sia t?/? TTLGTecos), by which Almighty Gocl justified 
' all from the beginning of the world 2 .' Shortly afterwards 
Clement adds in the spirit of St James 'Let us then stJAaras— 
' work from our whole heart the work of righteousness 3 .' 
And the same tenor of thought reappears in the continual 
reference to the fear of God as instrumental in the accom- 
plishment of these good works 4 . 

In other passages it is possible to trace the influence of st jok*- 
St John. ' The blood of Christ hath gained for the whole 
'world the offer of the grace of repentance 5 .' 'Through 
' Him we look steadfastly on the heights of heaven ; through 
' Him we view as in a glass (evo7rrpL^6fie0a) His spotless 
' and most excellent visage ; through Him the eyes of our 
' heart were opened ; through Him our dull and darkened 
' understanding is quickened with new vigour on turning to Epistu to the 
' His marvellous light 6 .' The allusions to the Epistle to Hebrews - 

1 cc. x., xii. Cf. Dr Lightfoot, 5 c vii. virtyeyKev' the use of the 
Ep. to Galatians, pp. 15 t ff. word is remarkable. 

2 c. xxxii. The distinction sug- 6 c. xxxvi. Nothing but the ori- 
gested between the final cause and ginal can fully convey the exqui- 
the instrument by the double use of site ^beauty of the last words : r/ 
dia is very interesting. davveros /cat eaKonoixevr} dtdvota tj/jlQv 

3 c. xxxiii. avaddWet els to 6clviao.gtov clvtov 

4 cc. iii., xix., xxi., &c. Cf. Schlie- <pcbs. Our understanding is like a 
maun, s. 414. Herm. Past. Mand. flower in a sunless cavern till the 
vii. (p. 363). light of God falls on it. 



24 The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 

chap. i. the Hebrews are so numerous that it is not too much to 
say that it was wholly transfused into Clement's mind 1 . 
, . „. . And yet more than this : the Epistle of Clement 

(y in disci- J \ 

piine, proves the existence of a definite constitution and a fixed 

service in the Church. And this will explain why he was 
selected as the representative of that principle of organiza- 
tion which seems to have been naturally developed in 
every Roman society. A systematic constitution, as well 
as a Catholic Creed, had a necessary connexion with that 

in matters of form of mind whose whole life was law. Thus Clement 

government, r . ,,..,.. ... „ , 

and of refers to 'episcopal jurisdiction as an institution ot the 

Apostles, who are said to have appointed those ' who were 
'the firstfruits of their labours in each state as officers 
' {eiTLGicoTrovs teal Sca/covovs) for the ordering of the future 
'Church 2 .' At the same time earnest warnings are given 
against 'division and parties 3 ,' which, as we see from the 
Pastoral Epistles, arose as soon as the rules of ecclesiastical 

ritual. discipline were drawn closer. But this is not all ; for the 

times of the ' offerings and services ' of Christians are 
referred to the authority of the Lord Himself, who ' com- 
' manded that they should not be made at random, or in a 
' disorderly manner, but at fixed seasons and hours 4 .' It is 
possible that this is only a transference of the laws of the 
Jewish synagogue, which w r ere sanctioned by the observ- 
ance of our Saviour, to the Christian Church ; as is in- 
deed made probable by the parallel which Clement insti- 
-tutes between the Levitical and Christian priesthood 5 ; but 
all that needs to be particularly remarked is that such 

1 The most remarkable of these occur inc. xvii. (Hebr. xi. 37),c.xliii. 
allusions occurs directly after the (Hebr. iii. 5), dx. On Clement's re- 
passage just quoted (c. xxxvi): 5s ferences to the Lord's words, see 
(Christ) &v 0L7rauya(TfjLa tt}s /neyaXca- p. 46, n. 3. 
awtjs avrou Tocrovrco fxdfav iarlu 2 c. xlii. 
ayytXwv oacp 5ta0opcurepoz/ ftvofxa Ke~ 3 c. xliv. 
K\7]pov6/jL7)K€v, k.t.X. Cf Hebr. i. 3, 4 c. xl. 
If. Other unquestionable parallels 5 Id. 



I.] Ignatius. 25 

phraseology is clearly of a date subsequent to the Pastoral chap. i. 
Epistles. The polity recognized by St Paul had advanced 
to a further stage of development at the time when Cle- 
ment wrote. 

The kind of testimony to the New Testament which is Th f peculiar 

J value of this 

thus obtained is beyond all suspicion of design ; and, 2iA- kind °- f testi ' 
mitting the genuineness of the record, above all contradic- 
tion. The Christian Church, as Clement describes it, 
exhibits a fusion of elements which must have existed 
separately at no distant period. Tradition ascribes to him 
expressly the task of definitely combining what was left 
still disunited by the Apostles ; and we find that the very 
elements which he recognized are exactly those, without 
any omission or increase, which are preserved to us in 
the New Testament as stamped with Apostolic authority 1 . 
The other Fathers of the first age, as will be seen, re- 
present more or less clearly some special form of Chris- 
tian teaching • but Clement places them all side by side. 
They witness to the independent weight of parts of the 
Canon: he ratifies generally the claims of the whole. 



§ 2. Ignatius. 

The letters which bear the name of Ignatius are dis- The peculiar- 
tinguished among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers ignatian 
by a character of which no exact type can be found in the 
New Testament. They bear the stamp of a mind fully 
imbued with the doctrine of St Paul, but at the same 
time exhibit a spirit of order and organization foreign 
to the first stage of Christian society. In them 'the 

1 The Apostles were charged with Jerusalem an outward framework 

the enunciation of principles, and was required for Christian truth ; 

not with their combination. They and the arranging of this according 

had to do with essence, and not with to Apostolic rules was left to the 

form. But after the destruction of successors of the Apostles. 



23 



The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 

chap. i. Catholic Church 1 ' is recognized as an outward body of Christ 
made up of many members. The image which St Paul 



1 The phrase occurs for the first 
time in Ignatius, ad Smyrn. viii. ottov 
av <pavfj 6 eirla kottos e/ce? to ttXtjOos 
£<tto}, uicnrep oirov av y 'Kpicrrbs 'I77- 
aovs eKei i) KadoXtKT] €KK\7]ala. The 
context deals with the principle of 
unity centred in the bishop in each 
Church. What the bishop is to the 
individual Church, that is Christ 
to the 'universal' Church. Where 
* Christ Jesus' is (and the fulness of 
the title is not without significance) 
there is the 'universal' Church. His 
Presence is the one test of Catho- 
licity. 

In the Martyrdom of Poly carp, 
which was written in the name of 
the Church of Smyrna (a. d. 167), 
the phrase is found with somewhat 
greater latitude of meaning. This 
appears in the Salutation : 7) £xk\t]- 
giol tov deov 77 irapoiKovaa 2/JLVpvav 
rrj eKKXrjaia rod deov rfj irapoiKOvar) 

€V $lXofJL7]XLq) KCLL iraGOLlS TCUS KaTCL 

irdvra tottov ttjs ayias Kal KadoXitcrjs 
€KK\r}alas 7rapoiKiais eXeos elprjvrj Kal 
ay d-rrr}' and again in the combina- 
tion... ttjs Kara ttjv oIkov jxevTjv Kado- 
Xlktjs cKKXrjaias (cc. viii., xix.) ; and 
still more in the title given to Poly- 
carp as ewio-KOiros ttjs ev ^.jULvpvrj 
Ka6o\iKr}s €KK\r}(Tias (c. xvi.), where 
the word KadoXtKTjs is exchanged for 
sanctce in the old Latin Version. 

In these passages there is a tend- 
ency towards two distinct concep- 
tions of that Catholicity of which 
the Presence of Christ is the essential 
sign, the one external and regarding 
the extension of the Church through- 
out the whole world, the other internal 
and marking a characteristic of each 
part of the Society in itself. Speaking 
broadly, we may say that we can 
find in them the germs of the local 
and dogmatic ideas of catholicity 
which at a later time were w r ell 
explained by Cyril of Jerusalem: 
radoXiKT] fiev oZv KaXeLTai [77 eKKXrjaia] 
dia rb Kara irdvns elvai rrjs oUov/jl^vtjs 



dirb ireparuv yrjs ?ws ireparw Kal dia 
to 5t.8d<TKeiv KadoXiKus Kal dveXXei- 
ttQs airavTa to, els yvQuiv dvOpdnnov 
eXdetv ocpeiXovra dby/j.aTa...{Catech. 
xviii. § 11). 

These two ideas though finally di- 
vergent are capable of being traced 
back to the same source ; or rather 
they were necessarily evolved in due 
succession by the historic progress 
of Christianity, through its claim to 
universality. At first the Christian 
Church was contemplated in contrast 
with the Jewish Church: a society 
with no limits of race or nation in 
contrast with one confined to a cho- 
sen people. And next a contrast 
arose between Christian societies 
themselves, as this claimed to follow 
the teaching of one Apostle and that 
of another, while a third treasured 
up with equal reverence all the va- 
rious forms of Apostolic teaching. 
The true Church was Catholic as 
opposed equally to what was special 
and to what was partial. 

As the opposition between Chris- 
tianity and Judaism became less 
keen, the universal extension of the 
Christian Church was interpreted in 
a merely local sense, and 'catholic' 
became practically synonymous with 
locally universal, in which sense the 
title is constantly interpreted by 
Augustine, as for instance: Ipsa 
est enim ecclesia catholica ; unde Ka- 
OoXlktj Grsece appellatur, quod per 
totum orbem terrarum diftunditur. 
Epist. lii. 1. Comp. cxl. 43. 

But it is in the sense of universal 
as opposed to partial that the term 
'Catholic' is of vital importance in 
the history of the Church. In this 
respect Catholicity is the ecclesiasti- 
cal correlative to the whole sum of 
the Holy Scriptures, Old and Xew, 
and the protest against all exclusive- 
ness, whether of Ebionites, or Mar- 
cionites, or Donatists — the earliest 
types of legalism, rationalism, and 



I.] Ignatius. 27 

Lad sketched is there realized and filled up with startling chap. i. 
boldness. The Church polity of the Pastoral Epistles etpiicdbieby 
seems dim and uncertain when compared with the rigid utkhstPaui 
definitions of these later writings. But in this lies their S^fcEph. 

force as witnesses to our Canon. They presuppose those 
Epistles of St Paul which have seemed most liable to 
attack ; and on the other hand they exhibit exactly that 
form of doctrine into which the principles of St Paul and suitable 

x . x .to the position 

would naturally be reduced by a vigorous and logical of Ignatius. 
teacher presiding over the central Church of Gentile Chris- 
tendom, 'the anti-pole of Jerusalem/ and there brought 
into contact with the two rival parties within the Church, 
as well as with the different heresies which had been de- 
tected and condemned by St John 1 . 

It is unnecessary to enter here into the controversy one general 
which has been raised about the Ignatian Epistles 2 . If marks au 
any part of them be accepted as genuine, our argument Epistles^ 
holds good ; for it is drawn from their general character. 
After they have been reduced within the narrowest limits 
which are justified by historical criticism, they still shew 
a clear and vivid individuality, a character which, however 
different from the popular idea of a disciple of St John, 

puritanism, if we may venture to the controversy. It is but right to 
translate the names into general confess that the more carefully I 
terms. have studied the shorter recension 
It may be added that it is remark- the more firmly I am convinced that 
able that the epithet 'Catholic,' it proceeds entirely from one mind 
which in later times the Latin and one pen. The most startling 
Church has appropriated to herself, peculiarities are those which spring- 
is not applied to the Church in the most directly from the position of 
Western Creeds till the 7th (or per- Ignatius. A careful and minute 
haps the 6th) century. On the other examination of the language of all 
hand it is found almost universally the Epistles would I believe bring 
in the Eastern Creeds (Heurtley, the question of their unity at least 
Harm. Symbol, p. 143). Pearson to a ^satisfactory close. But this 
has given a very rich collection of would carry us far beyond the limits 
passages illustrating the usage of the of our Essay. In the following 
word: On the Creed, Art. ix. pages I shall refer to the seven Epi- 

1 Cf. Dorner, I. 144 sqq. sties, marking the passages found also 

2 Hefele gives a fair summary of in the Syriac Version. 



28 The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [paet 

chap. i. appears to be not unsuited to the early Bishop of Antioch. 
Its very distinctness has suggested doubts of its authen- 
ticity ; but even at the first view it seems to be one far 
more likely to have been imitated than invented. The 
exaggerations of the copy bring out more clearly the traits 
ana u could of the original. It would have been difficult, if not im- 

not easily have ° 

been invented possible, for a later writer to have imagined Ignatius, as 

in a later age, f . 

he appears m the letters, zealous against Docetic here- 
sies, Jewish traditions, and individual schism : keenly alive 
to the very dangers, and those only, with which he must 
however easily have contended at Antioch. But when the character was 

imitated.. . . 

once portrayed it onered a tempting model for imitation. 
The style and opinions of Ignatius are clear and trenchant. 
He was at an early time looked upon as the representative 
of ecclesiastical order and doctrine in its technical details, 
differing in this from Clement, whose name, as we have 
seen, symbolized the union of the different elements con- 
tained in the Apostolic teaching. The one appears in tra- 
dition as systematizing the Catholic Church which the 
other had constructed 1 . 
This character The traditional aspect of these two great teachers har- 

moreovcr suits , x . 

the historical monizes with their real historical position. The letter of 

position of t x 

ignatius; and Clement falls within the Apostolic age ; and Ignatius was 
a.d. io 7 . martyred in the reign of Trajan 2 . So that his letters pro- 
bably come next in date among the remains of the earliest 
Christian literature. A comparison of the writings them- 
* selves would lead to the same conclusion. The letters of 
Ignatius could not naturally have preceded that of Cle- 
ment, while they follow it in a legitimate sequence, and 

1 Popular traditions frequently ' Trinity 1 (Socr. H. E. vr. 8). Cf. 

embody a character with singular Bingham, Orig. Eccles. iv. 434. 
beauty in some one trait. Thus Ig- 2 Pearson, followed by many later 

natius is said to have instituted the writers, fixed Ignatius' martyrdom 

custom of singing hymns antiphon- in 116. Hefele and Mohler prefer 

ally * from a vision of angels whom the earlier date, 
'he saw thus singing to the Holy 



I.] Ignatius. 29 

form a new stage, so to speak, in the building of the Chris- chap. i. 
tian Church. This may be clearly seen in the different 
modes by which they enforce the necessity of an organized 
ministry. Clement appeals to the analogy of the Levitical 
priesthood ; Ignatius insists on the idea of a Christian 
body. 

The circumstances under which Ignatius wrote, on his his utters, 

,° . . though marked 

way from Antioch to Rome, necessarily impressed his let- tyfaftuenass 
ters with a peculiar character. It has been argued that they 
are unlike the last words of a Christian martyr, written on 
the very road to death : it should be said that they are un- 
like the words of any other martyr than Ignatius. They 
are indeed the parting charge of one who was conscious that 
he was called away at a crisis in the history of the Church. 
As long as an Apostle lived old things had not yet passed 
away; but on the death of St John it seemed that the 
'last times 1 ' were at hand, though in one sense, according 
to His promise, Christ had then come, and a new age of 
the world had begun. The perils which beset this transi- 
tion from Apostolic to Episcopal government, in the midst 
of heresies within and persecutions without, might well 
explain warmer language than that of Ignatius. He wrote 
with earnest vehemence because he believed that episco- 
pacy was the bond of unity, and unity the safety of the 
Church 2 . 

In this way the letters of Ignatius complete the history 
of one feature of Christianity. The Epistles of St Paul to 
the Ephesians, his Pastoral Epistles, and the Epistles of 
Clement and Ignatius, when taken together, mark a har- 
monious progression in the development of the idea of a 

1 Ad Eph. xi. TTjs tv "Zvpia- iKKXrjcrias, rjrcs dvrl 

2 This feeling is expressed with ejuLou ttol/xevl t<£ Qe(3 xpyrai. M6j/os 
touching simplicity in the Epistle to avrrjV 'lr,(Tovs Xpicrrbs &rc<rJcom}<rei 
the Romans, which, as is well known, koX tj vfxwv aydir-q (c. ix.). The pas- 
is most free from hierarchical views. sage is omitted in the Sjriac Ver- 
'Mv-rj/jLovevere kv rrj Trpoaevxv ty£v sion. 



30 



The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. 



[PAET 



chap. i. Church. The first are creative, and the last constructive. 
form a last I n the Epistle to the Ephesians the great mystery of the 
Tevelopmeiit Christian Society is set forth under two images, which in- 
°oj 'the church, elude the essential truths of all later speculations. It is 
the Body of Christ in virtue of the one life which it de- 
rives from Sim who is its Head; and it is the Temple 
of God, so far as it is built up in various ages and of va- 
rious elements on the foundations which Christ laid, and 
of which He is the corner-stone. In the Pastoral Epistles 
this teaching is realized in the outlines of a visible society. 
In the later writings the great principles of Scripture are 
reduced to a system, and expanded with logical ingenuity. 
But when this connexion is traced by the help of an unde- 
signed commentary in writings fragmentary, occasional, 
and inartificial, it surely follows that a series of books so 
intimately united must indeed have been the original ex- 
pressions of the successive forms of Christian thought 
which they exhibit. 
The connexion Though the Ignatian letters witness to three chief types 
tlatietterf of Apostolic teaching, one type stands forth in them with 
Testament™ peculiar prominence. The image of St Paul is stamped 
r mih Specia y alike upon their language and their doctrine. The refer- 
ences to the New Testament are almost exclusively confined 
to his writings. Familiar words and phrases shew that he 
was a model continually before the writers eyes; and in 
one place this is expressly affirmed 1 . 



1 The only coincidences which I 
have noticed between the language 
of St John and Ignatius consist in 
the frequent use of dyd-rrrj, dyairfu, 
and 6 ovpavos, while St Paul and 
Clement generally use ol ovpavoi. 

The words common to St Paul 
and Ignatius only are very numerous, 
e. g. dddKLfjios — ava\pvxew — direpl- 
<nrao-Tcs — ZKTpufia- horns — OwpLO/na- 
y/iv — 'lovdai'a/JLos — dvaipirjv — oIkovo- 
ixla (met.) — (pvaiovv. 



Those peculiar to Ignatius are still 
more numerous: e.g. ay io<p6pos — dp.*- 
ptcTTos — avrl\pvxov — compounds of 
d%ios, as d^iodeos, d^iopLaKapiCTOs — 
d7rodLv\i^eadaL — dpoo-lfeo-dai — kvovv, 
Zvucns — compounds of debs, as deodpo- 
fMOS, 6eo<p6pos — KaKorexvlo. — <pdpp.a- 
kov. The references are made to all 
the shorter Epistles without distinc- 
tion, whether contained in the Syriac 
or not. 



I.] Ignatius. 31 

The controversy against Jewish practices is conducted chap. i. 
as sternly as in the Epistle to the Galatians, though its st Paul, in n 

J x r>n • • ' f^rence to Ju- 

form shews that it belongs to a later epoch. Christianity daiam, 
is distinguished by a new name (Xpicrrcavicrfio^ 1 ) as a 
system contrasted with Judaism. Judaism (lovSaicr/jLos) 
is c an evil leaven that has grown old and sour 2 .' c To use 
'the name of Jesus Christ and yet observe Jewish customs 
'is unnatural (aro7roz/ 3 ).' ' To live according to Judaism is 
' to confess that we have not received grace 4 .' At the same 
time, like St Paul, Ignatius regards Christianity as the 
completion, and not the negation, of the Old Testament. the0 J d Te " fn - 

r ' © ' meaty and 

The prophets 'lived according to Jesus Christ,... being in- 
• spired by His grace, to the end that those who disbelieve 
'should be convinced that it is one God who manifested 
' Himself [both in times past and now] through Jesus Christ 
'His Son, who is His Eternal (diScos) "Word, not having 
1 proceeded from Silence,' from which some have held that 
Thought and .Word were evolved as successive forms of 
the Divine Being, and ' who in all things well-pleased Him 
'that sent Him 5 .' 

The Ignatian doctrine of the unity of the Church, which the Church. 
in its construction shews the mind of St Peter, is really 
based upon the cardinal passage of St Paul 6 . Christians 
individually are members of Christ, who is their great 
Spiritual Head. And conversely, the Church universal, and 
each Church in particular, represents the body of Christ, 

1 Ad. Rom. c. iii. <£r. This new against Heresies/ Now it appears 

name likewise conies from Antioch. that the same phraseology was used 

Cf. Acts xi. 26. in the i Great Announcement,' an 

3 Ad Magn. x. authoritative exposition of the doc- 

3 Ibid. trines of the Simonians, and conse- 

4 Ad Magn. Tiii. quently it must have been current 

5 Ad Magn. viii. The reference in Ignatius' time (Hipp. adv. Hcer.xi. 
to Silence (21777). which forms an iS). Cf. Bunseri, Hippoiytus, I. 57 
important element in Valentinian- ff., whose opinion on the subject 
ism, was a serious objection to the however seems improbable, 
authenticity of the Ignatian letters 6 Eph. v. 23 sqq. 

till the discovery of the 'Treatise 



32 The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 

crap. i. and its history must so far set forth an image of the life of 
Christ in its spirit and its form. As a consequence of this 
view the Bishop in the earthly and typical Church is not 
only a representation of Christ, whom ' we must regard as 
' Christ Himself 1 / and ' a partaker of the judgment of Christ, 
' even as Christ was of the judgment of the Father 2 / while 
the Church is united to Christ as He is united to the 
Father 3 : but also — and in this lies the most remarkable 
peculiarity of his system — the relation of the Church as a 
living whole to its different officers corresponds in some 
sense to that of Christ Himself, of whom it is an image, to 
the Father on the one hand, and on the other to the 
Apostles. On earth the Bishop is the centre of unity in 
each society, as the Father is the 'Bishop of all 4 .' Be- 
lievers are subject to the Bishop as to God's grace, and to 
the presbytery as to Christ's law 5 ; since the Bishop, as he 
ventures to say in another place, c presides as representa- 
' tive of God, and the presbyters as representatives of the 
'Apostolic Council 6 / 
connexion The Ignatian writings, as might be expected, are not 

without traces of the influence of St John. The circum- 
stances in which he was placed required a special enun- 
ciation of Pauline doctrine; but this is not so expressed as 
to exclude the parallel lines of Christian thought. Love 
is 'the stamp of the Christian 7 / ' Faith is the beginning, 
'and love the end of life 8 / 'Faith is our guide upward 
' (dvaycoyevs), but love is the road that leads to God 9 .' The 
Eternal (di'Sios) Word is the manifestation of God 10 , 'the 
'door by which we come to the Father 11 / 'and without 
'Him we have not the principle of true life 12 / The true 

1 Ad Eph. vi. 7 Ad Magn. v. 

2 Ad Eph. iii. 8 Ad Eph. xiv. 

3 Ad Eph. v. 9 Ad Eph. ix. (So Syr.) 

4 Ad Magn. iii. 10 Ad Magn. viii. (quoted above.) 

5 Ad Magn. ii. u Ad Philad. ix. Cf. John x. 7. 

6 Ad Magn. vi. 12 Ad Trail, ix.: ov xupls to dX-n- 



witti St Jokx. 



I.] Polycarp. 33 

meat of the Christian is the 'bread of God, the bread of chap. i. 
'heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus 
'Christ/ and his drink is 'Christ's blood, which is love 
'incorruptible 1 .' He has no love of this life; 'his love has ■ 
' been crucified, and he has in him no burning passion for 
' the world, but living water [as the spring of a new life] 
' speaking within him, and bidding him come to his Fa- 
' ther 2 .' Meanwhile his enemy is the enemy of his Master, 
even 'the ruler of this age 3 .' 

§ 3. Polycarp. 
The short epistle of Polycarp contains far more refer- The scriptural 

*■ J x character of 

ences to the writings of the New Testament than any other Polycarp's 

° m J epistle 

work of the first age ; and still, with one exception, all the 
phrases which he borrows are inwoven into the texture of 
his letter without any sign of quotation. In other cases 
it is possible to assign verbal coincidences to accident; but 
Polycarp's use of scriptural language is so frequent that it 
is wholly unreasonable to doubt that he was acquainted 
with the chief parts of our Canon; and the mode in which illustrates the 

x ' . early method 

this familiarity is shewn serves to justify the conclusion of quotation. 
that the scriptural language of other books in which it 
occurs more scantily implies a similar knowledge of the 
Apostolic writings 4 . 

6 lvov Zfjv ovk ^x°^ €V ' Cf. ad Eph. al&vos rofrrov. Cf. John xii. 31; 
iii.: 'I.X. to aSi&Kpirov tj/ulQv $rjv... xvi. 11:6 dpxw tov kolt[aov toijtov* 

1 Ad Rom. vii. The Syriac text and see 1 Cor. ii. 6, 8. 

though shorter gives the same sense. 4 The authenticity of Polycarp's 

Cf. John vi. 32, 51, 53. Epistle stands quite unshaken. Cf. 

2 Ad Rom. I.e. The last clause Schliemann, s. 418 anm.; Jacobson, 
is wanting in the Syriac, yet the ad vit. Polyc. note q. Schwegler, 11. 
boldness of the metaphor seems to be 154 sqq., has added no fresh force 
in Ignatius' manner. TLvp (ptXovXov, to the old objections. Donaldson 
'fiery passion for the material world,' however, following Daille and Bun- 
which forms a good contrast with sen, rejects c xiii. as an interpolation, 
vdeop {Qv, 'living water,' is certainly, on grounds which appear to be in- 
I think, the true reading. Cf. John sufficient. See Jacobson ad loc. 

iv. 13; vii. 38. The fragments of ' Polycarp's Ke- 

3 Ad Rom. I.e.: 6 dpxw tov sponsions' given by Feuardentius in 

C. D 



34 



The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 



chap. i. A scriptural tone naturally involves a catholicity of 

its connexion spirit. Polycarp is second only to Clement among the early 
Testament, Fathers in the breadth of Apostolic teaching embraced in 
icith J his epistle 1 . The influence of St Peter, St John, and St 

Paul, may be traced in his doctrine. In one sentence he 
has naturally united 2 the watchwords, so to say, of the 
three Apostles, where he speaks of Christians being ' built 
( up into the faith given to them, which is the mother of its 
c all (cf. Gal. iv. 26), hope following after, love towards God 
'and Christ and towards our neighbour preceding/ But 
nd the peculiar similarity of this epistle to that of St Peter 
was a matter of remark even in early times 3 . It would be 
curious to enquire how this happens; for though the dis- 
ciple of St John reflects from time to time the burning 
zeal of his master 4 ; though in writing to the Church most 
beloved by St Paul he recals the features of their 'glorious' 
founder; still he exhibits more frequently the tone of St 



St Peter a 



his notes on Irenseus (in. 3) cannot, 
I think, be genuine. Is anything 
known of the MS. Catena from 
which they were taken? 

1 The similarity between parts of 
the Epistles of Clement and Poly- 
carp is very striking. The passages 
are printed at length by Hefele, 
Proleg. p. xxvii. sqq. In single words 
the likeness is not less remarkable. 

2 Schwegler, II. 157. Polyc. ad 
Phil. c. iii. Compare Jacobson's 
note. 

3 Euseb. H. E. iv. 14. 

4 The famous passage, c. vii. init. 
in connexion with Iren. in. 3 (Euseb. 
IV. 14), will occur to every one. The 
words of Irenaeus deserve to be 
transcribed, as they carry on a gene- 
ration later the power of the apo- 
stolic life already noticed in Irenseus' 
acconnt of Clement (Supr. p. 20, n.3). 
Kal UoXtiKapTTOS 5£ ov jjlovov virb cbrc- 
gtoKuv fJLadnrevdeU Kal (ivvavacrTpa- 
<pels ttoWois rots top Xptcrrdj/ ecopa- 
Kbcriv dWa Kal vwb dirocroXajif vcara- 



(rradels els rr\v ' ' Aalav ev rfj kv 'E/j.vpi'rj 
eKKkyjaiq, iiriaKOTros, Sv Kal rjfxels ewpd- 
Kafxev iv rrj irpwrri 7)fxQ>v rfXiKia, €ttl- 
ttoXij yap Trape/meive Kal irdvv yvpaXe'os 
£i>d6£u)s Kal ewKpaviarara fxaprvp^- 
cras e£r)\6e rod /3/of, ravro, didd^as 
del a Kal irapd tQu aTroaroXwu ZfAadev, 
a Kal 7] €KK\r)o~La Trapadldioo'iv, a Kal 
l±6va eo~rlv dXrjd?}. Maprvpovctv rou~ 
rots al Kara ttju 'Aaiav €KK\7)(riai 
7rdVcu, ac.t.X. 

The perpetuity of Apostolic doc- 
trine in its fulness is an implicit 
testimony to the authority of the 
New Testament as a whole. 

To complete the testimony the 
words of Tertullian may be added : 
Hoc enim modo ecclesise Apostolica? 
census suos deferunt, sicut Smyrnse- 
orum ecclesia Polycarpum ab Jo- 
hanne conlocatum refeit, sicut Ro- 
manorum Clementem a Petro ordi- 
natum edit, proinde utique et cseterae 
exhibent quos Apostoli in episcopa- 
tumconstitutosApostoliciseniinis tra- 
duces habeant (l)e Pro'scr. Ilcur. 32). 



l] Polycarp. 35 

Peter, when he* spoke at the last as the expounder of the > CHAP - L 
Christian law. Whatever may be the explanation of this, 
the fact is in itself important ; for it confirms and defines 
what has been already remarked as to the mutual in- 
fluences which appear to have ultimately modified the 
writings of St Peter and St Paul. The style of St Peter, 
it is well known, is most akin to that of the later epistles of 
St Paul; and in full harmony with this, the letter of Poly- 
carp, while it echoes so many familiar phrases of the First 
Epistle of St Peter, shews scarcely less likeness to the tn*. Pastoral 
Pastoral Epistles of St Paul 1 . It can scarcely be an ac- 
cident that it does so ; and at any rate it follows that a 
peculiar representation of Christian doctrine, which has 
been held in our own time to belong to the middle of the 
second century, was familiarly recognized in its double 
form, without one mark of doubt, almost within the verge 
of the Apostolic age 2 . Unless we admit the authenticity a.d. «& 
of the Pastoral Epistles and of the First Epistle of St 
Peter, the general tone and language of the Epistle of 
Polycarp are wholly inexplicable 3 . 



1 The following passages from St Clement, in the name of the Church 

Peter may be noticed: i Pet. i. 8 of Rome, uses the common salu- 

(c. i.); i. 13 (c. ii.) ; i. 21 (c. ii.); iii. tation of St Paul x&P ls Ka " L e ' L PV v7 l- 
9 (c. ii.) ; ii. 11 (c. v.) ; iv. 7 (c. vii.) ; 2 The epistle of Polycarp was 

ii. 22, 24 (c. viii.). written shortly after the Martyrdom 

We may perhaps compare also the of Ignatius, and its date consequently 

notices of St Paul found in 2 Pet. iii. depends on that. Cf. cc. ix., xiii., and 

15; Polyc. c. iii. Jacobson's note on the last passage, 

As to the Pastoral Epistles, see which removes Liicke's objection. 
c. iv. (1 Tim. vi. to, 7) ; c. v. (2 Tim. 3 Among the peculiarities of Poly- 

ii. 12); c. xii. (1 Tim. ii. 2). carp's language are the following : lie 

The inscriptions of the epistles of has in common with St Paul only 

the Apostolic Fathers are not with- airoiikavav — dppaj3dcv — &(pi\dpyvpos 

out special significance. Polycarp — to kol\6v — pLaraioKoylci — irpovoeiv. 

writes eXeos vjuuu Kal dpy\vy\' in the Of his coincidences with St Peter, 

New Testament eXeos occurs in which consist in whole phrases and 

the salutations of 1 and 2 Tim., not in single words, we have already 

2 John, and Jude. Ignatius, with spoken. The following words are 

one exception (ad Philad.), says not found elsewhere in the Patrr. 

7rXet(7Ta x a ^P €LV * Cf. James i. 1. App. nor at all in the New Testa* 

D 2 



36 



The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 



chap. I. 

Relation to 

Ignatian 

letters. 



The special 
value of 
Polycarp's 
testimon •/. 



The dangers which impressed on the Ignatian letters 
their peculiar character have given some traits to that of 
Polycarp. He too insists on the necessity 'of turning 
c away from false teaching to the word handed down from 
'the first 1 / The true historic presence and work of the 
Lord, on which Ignatius insists with emphatic earnestness 
in combating the error of the Docetse, forms the centre of 
the teaching of Polycarp. ' For whoever/ he affirms in the 
spirit and almost in the words of St John, ( does not con- 
' fess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is Antichrist ; 
1 and whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is 
' of the devil ; and whoever perverts the oracles of the Lord 
' to his own lusts and says that there is neither resurrection 
' nor judgment, this man is the firstborn of Satan 2 / Chris- 
tians, he says elsewhere, 'are to be subject to the priests 
'and deacons, as to God and Christ 3 / Fasting had already 
become a part of the discipline of the Church 4 . 

In one respect the testimony of Polycarp is more im- 
portant than that of any other of the Apostolic Fathers. 
Like his Master, he lived to unite two ages 5 . He had 
listened to St John, and he became himself the teacher of 
Irenseus. In an age of convulsion and change he stands 
at Smyrna and Rome as a type of the changeless truths of 
Christianity. In his extreme age he still taught 'that 
' ' which he had learned from the Apostles, and which con- 
' tinued to be the tradition of the Church 6 / And in the 
•next generation his teaching was confirmed by all the 
Churches in Asia 7 . Thus the zeal of Polycarp watches 



ment except in St Peter's and St 
Paul's Epistles, avaKOTrreadai — xf/ev- 
dddeXcpos — ^evdodibao-KCLXia — jmedo- 
deveiv (nedoSeia, St Paul)— diroro/Mos 
(airoTG/JLia, St Paul). 

1 c. vii. 

2 c. vii. The words might seem a 
condemnation of the characteristic 



errors of our own age. 

3 c. v. 

4 c. vii. 

5 His death is variously placed 
from 147 — 178. Perhaps 167 is the 
most probable date. 

G Jren. ill. 3. 4. 
7 Iren. /. c. 



I.] 



Barnabas. 



37 



over the whole of the most critical period of the history of chap. i. 
Christianity. His words are the witness of the second 



age 



§ 4. Barnabas. 
The arouments which have been urged against the The utter of 

£> , 00 Barnabas 

claims of the Epistle of Barnabas to be considered as a 9envme t 
work of the first age cannot overbalance the direct histo- 
rical testimony by which it is supported. It is quoted 
frequently, and with respect, by Clement and Origen. 
Eusebius speaks of it as a book well known, and com- 
monly circulated ($>epofikvrj), though he classes it with the 
books whose Canonicity was questioned or denied 2 . In 
Jerome's time it was still read among the Apocryphal 
Scriptures. It follows the Apocalypse in the Sinaitic MS. 
of the Greek Bible. In the Stichometria of Nicephorus it 
is classed with the Antilegomena. 

But while the antiquity of the Epistle is firmly esta- butnotApo- 
blished, its Apostolicity is very questionable. A writing 
bearing the name of Barnabas, and known to be of the 
Apostolic age, might very naturally be attributed to the 
'Apostle' in default of any other tradition; and the sup- 
posed connexion of Barnabas of Cyprus with Alexandria 3 , 
where the letter first gained credit, would render the hy- 



1 In the account of his martyrdom 
he is described as one 'who proved 
1 himself in our times an apostolic and 
' prophetic teacher and bishop of the 
* Catholic Church in Smyrna. For 
1 every word which he uttered from 
'his mouth both was accomplished 
1 and will be accomplished,' (u>i> [scil. 
tGv €k\€kt(2v] eh...yey6vet. 6...Ho\tf- 
Kapwos, evrols Kad\i]/Lids xP^ols dcdd- 
ckclXos diroaToXtKos kclI 7TpO(p7]TlKbs 
yev5,u,evos, iiriaK07r6s [re] rfts ev ~(ivp- 
vn Kado\LKrjs eKKXrjalas. . .Ecdes. Smyr. 
Epist. c. xvi.;. It is obvious that the 



epithet 'apostolic' is explained by 
'in our times,' and 'prophetic' by 
the last clause of the quotation. 
It might have been unnecessary to 
notice this but for Credner's strange 
theory: Gesch. d. Kan. 89. 

The authenticity of this narrative 
of the martyrdom has been called in 
question (see especially Donaldson, 
pp. 101 ff.), but there seems to be no 
sufficient reason for doubting its gene- 
ral truthfulness. 

2 H. E. in. 25 ; vi. 14. 

3 Clem. Horn. 1. 9, 13; n. 4. 



38 The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 

chap. i. pothesis more natural. Clement and Jerome identify the 
author with the fellow-labourer of St Paul; but on the 
other hand Origen and Eusebius are silent on this point. 
From its contents it seems unlikely that it was written by 
a companion of Apostles, and a Levite \ In addition to 
this, it is probable that Barnabas died before A.D. 62 2 ; 
and the letter contains not only an allusion to the de- 
struction of the Jewish Temple 3 , but also affirms the abro- 
gation of the Sabbath, and the general celebration of the 
Lord's Day 4 , which seems to shew that it could not have 
been written before the beginning of the second century. 
From these and similar reasons Hefele rightly, as it seems, 
decides that the Epistle is not to be attributed to Barna- 
bas the Apostle ; but at the same time he attaches undue 
importance to the conclusion as it affects the integrity of 
or canonical, the Canon. Jerome evidently looked upon the Epistle as 
an authentic writing of ' him who was ordained with St 
Paul/ and yet he classed it with the Apocrypha. It is 
an arbitrary assumption that a work of this Barnabas 
would necessarily be Canonical. There is no reason to 
believe that he received his appointment to the Aposto- 
late directly from our Lord, as the Twelve did, and after- 
wards St Paul ; and those who regard the Canon merely 
as a collection of works stamped with Apostolic authority 
can scarcely find any other limit to its contents than 
that which is fixed by the strictest use of the Apostolic 
•title 5 . 

1 Hefele, Das Sendschreiben des the Temple. 

Apostels Barnabas, ss. 166 ff. 4 c. xv. ad Jin. : 5t6 real dyofiev tyjv 

2 Hefele, ss. 37, 159. rjntpav tt)v dydbrjv els €v<ppo<TVP7jv } 

3 c. xvi. : Blcl yap rb iroXefie'ip av- k.t.X. Cf. Ign. ad Magn. ix. 

robs KaQy\pkQt) [6 vabs] virb rCbv exQp&v 5 Mohler, I find with the greatest 

vvv, Kal atirol /cat ol twv ixdpw vtttjp^- satisfaction, uses exactly the same 

rat dvoiKodofX7]<Tov(TLv airbv. Hefele's argument as to the supposed neces- 

punctuation (ex0p(2v' vvv k.t.X.) can- sary Canonicityof an authentic letter 

not, I think, stand. The writer calls of the Apostle Barnabas {Patrol. 

attention to the present desolation of 88). 



I.] Barnabas. 39 

Moreover there is no ground for supposing that every chap. i. 
writing of an Apostle would have found a place in the 
Canon of the Christian Church. It is scarcely possible 
but that some Apostolic writings have perished, and yet ' 
we believe that the Bible is none the less complete. There 
is no essential difference between a selection of records, 
and a selection of facts, taken within a given range. The 
same Divine Power which watched over the fragmentary 
recital of the acts and words of the Lord and His disciples, 
so that nothing should be wanting which it concerns us to 
know, acted (as far as we can see) in like manner in pre- 
serving for our perpetual instruction those among the 
writings of the Apostles which had an abiding significance. 
The Bible is for us the sum of prophetic and apostolic 
literature, but that is not its essential characteristic. It 
contains 'all that concerns Christ' in the same sense in 
which the Gospel contains all the teaching of Christ. 
The completeness in each case is not absolute, but relative 
to the work which is to be accomplished. 

But while the Epistle of Barnabas has no claims to its relation to 

. . ^/te Epistle to 

canonical authority, as a monument of the first Christian the Hebrews 
age it is full of interest. Among the writings of the Apo- 
stolic Fathers it holds the same place as the Epistle to the 
Hebrews in the New Testament. There is at least so 
much similarity between them as to render a contrast pos- 
sible, and thus to illustrate and confirm the true theory of 
Scriptural Inspiration. Both Epistles are constructed, so 
to speak, out of Old Testament materials; and yet the 
mode of selection and arrangement is widely different. 
Both exhibit the characteristic principles of the Alexan- 
drine school; but in the one case^they are modified, as it 
were, by an instinctive sense of their due relation to the 
whole system of Christianity; in the other they are sub- 
jected to no restraint, and usurp an independent and abso- 
lute authority. 



40 The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 

chap. i. The mystical interpretations of the Old Testament 

in regard to found in the Epistle to the Hebrews are marked by a kind 

the mystical x J 

interpretation f reserve. The author shews an evident consciousness 

of Scripture, 

and that this kind of teaching is not suited to all, but requires 

mature powers alike in the instructor and in the taught 1 . 
As if to transfer his readers to a more spiritual atmosphere, 
though this is but one aspect of the motive which seems 
to have ruled his choice, he takes his illustrations from 
the Tabernacle, and not from the Temple. The transitory 
resting-place which was fashioned according to the com- 
mand of God, and not the permanent ' house ' which was 
reared according to the design of man, was chosen as the 
figure of higher and divine truths. Those types which are 
pursued in detail are taken from the salient points of the 
Jewish ritual, and serve to awaken attention, without creat- 
ing any difficulties in the way of those who are naturally 
disinclined to what are called mystical speculations. It is 
otherwise in the Epistle of Barnabas. In that the subtlest 
interpretations are addressed to promiscuous readers — to 
'sons and daughters' — and the highest value is definitely 
affixed to them 2 . In parts there is an evident straining 
after novelty wholly alien from the calm and conscious 
strength of an Apostle ; and the details of his explana- 
tions are full of the rudest errors 3 . In the one Epistle we 
have to do with a method of interpretation clear and 
broad ; in the other we have an application of the method, 
*at times ingenious and beautiful, and then again arbitrary 
and incongruous. The single point of direct connexion 
between the two Epistles illustrates their respective cha- 
racters. Both speak of the rest of God on the seventh 

1 Hebr. v. nsqq. (IH'=i8) together with the Cross 

2 c. ix. ad fin.: ovdels yvrjcrt^repov (T' = 3oo). 

Zjxadev d7r' e/xoO \6yov, a\X [oT5a] otl 3 c. x. Yet the passages are 

&%ioL eVre vjulcTs. Barnabas has been quoted by Clement of Alexandria, 

speaking of the mystical interpreta- Cf. Hefele, Das Sendschrciben u. s. 

tion of the 318 members of Abra- w., s. 86. anm. 
ham's household as prefiguring Jesus 



I.] Barnabas. 41 

day ; but in the Epistle to the Hebrews this rest, not yet chap. i. 
realized by man, though prepared for him from the foun- 
dation of the world, is made a motive for earnest and 
watchful efforts, and nothing more is denned as to the 
time of its approach. Barnabas on the contrary, having 
spoken of the promise, determines the date of its fulfil- 
ment. The six days of the creation furnish a measure, and 
so he accepts the old tradition, current even in Etruria, 
which fixed the consummation of all things at the end of 
six thousand years from the creation 1 . 

But yet more than this : the general spirit of the ^L^iTa^L 
Epistle of Barnabas is different from that of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews. In the latter it is shewn that there lies a 
deep meaning for us under the history and the law of 
Israel. The old Covenant was real, though not ' faultless,' 
and its ordinances ay ere 'patterns of the things in heaven,' 
though not the heavenly things themselves 2 . But in the 
former it is assumed throughout that the Law was from 
its first institution misunderstood by the Jews. The first 
covenant was broken by reason of their idolatry, and the 
second became a stumblingblock to them in spite of the 
teaching of the Prophets 3 . Fasts, feasts, and sacrifices, , 

1 Heb. iv, Barn. xv. The E- i things and four-footed beasts in the 

trurian tradition is so remarkable ' air and on the earth and in the 

that it deserves to be quoted. 'An ' waters. In the sixth man. It ap- 

'able writer among them [the Etru- 'pears then that the first six periods 

'nans] compiled a history : God, he 'passed away before the formation 

'said, the Maker of all things provi- * (5ia7r\a<rts) of man ; and that during 

'dentially appointed twelve periods 'the remaining six the race of man 

1 of a thousand years for the duration 'will continue; so that the whole 

' of all His creatures, and distributed ' time up to the consummation of all 

1 them to the twelve so-called dispen- ' things extends to twelve thousand 

'sations (olkol). In the first period 'years' (Suidas, s. v. TvppTjvia). The 

1 (XtX"«) He made the heaven and conception of the gradual progress 

'the earth. In the second the visi- of creation in each period, so that 

4 ble firmament, and called it heaven. man is the final -result of the sixth, 

1 In the third the sea and all the is remarkable. A trace of the same 

'waters in the earth. In the fourth tradition is^ preserved by Servius ad 

'the great lights (<pw<TTrjpa$), the sun Virg. Ed. ix. 47. 

'and moon and the stars. In the 2 Hebr. viii. 7; x. 23. 

' fifth all living fowls and creeping 3 Barn. c. xiv. 



42 The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [pakt 

chap. i. were required by God only in a spiritual sense 1 . Even 
circumcision, as they practised it, was not the seal of God's 
covenant, but rather the work of an evil spirit, who in- 
duced them to substitute that for the circumcision of the 
heart 2 . The Jewish Sabbath was not according to God's 
will: their temple was a delusion 3 . Judaism is made a 
mere riddle, of which Christianity is the answer. It had 
in itself no value, not even as the slave (iraiSaycoyos;) which 
guards us in infancy from outward dangers, till we are 
placed under the true teachers care 4 . Each symbolic act 
is emptied of its real meaning, because it is deprived of 
the sacramental character with which God invested it, 
The worth of the Law, as one great instrument in the 
education of the world, is disregarded : the true idea of 
revelation, as a gradual manifestation of God's glory, is 
violated : the harmonious subordination of the parts of 
the divine scheme of redemption is destroyed. On such 
principles it is not enough that the sum of all future 
growth should be implicitly contained in the seed : that 
the vital principle which inspires the first and the last 
should be the same : that the identity of essence should 
be indicated by the identity of life : but all must be per- 
fect according to some arbitrary and stereotyped standard. 
Against this doctrine, which is the germ of all heresy, the 
Holy Scriptures ever consistently protest. Their catholicity 
is the constant mark of their divine origin ; and the un- 
" designed harmony which results from every possible com- 
bination of their different parts is the surest pledge of 
their absolute truth 5 . 

1 Barn. cc. ii., iii. (avaKaivifav) — evipyni^a — faojroiei- 

2 c. ix. <rdai, in common with St Paul ; and 

3 cc. xv., xvi. among his peculiarities may be no- 

4 GaL iii. 24. ticed aKepaioativq — diyvufios — bi- 

5 The language of Barnabas is y\u)<T<ros — dnrXoKapbla — 6pa<riJT7}s — 
more remarkable for peculiar words irava/jLdpTrjTos — (ir\d<T fia) , aixnr\d<r- 
than for coincidences with any parts aeadai — irpocpauepovcrdaL — (tvWjjtt- 
©f the New Testament. He has tw/) — virepayairq.v. 



I.] Their Relation to the Canon. 43 

CHAP. I. 

Sect, II. The Relation of the Apostolic Fathers 
to the Canon of the New Testament. 

The testimony of the Apostolic Fathers is not how- -The testimony 

J -J- m of the Apostolic 

ever confined to the recognition of the several types of ^f/ ie ^ t J he 
Christianity which are preserved in the Canonical Scrip- ment - 
tures : they confirm the genuineness and authority of the 
books themselves. That they do not appeal to the Apo- 
stolic writings more frequently and more distinctly springs 
from the very nature of their position. Those who had^/^J'^" 
heard the living voice of Apostles were unlikely to appeal trtdulm.' 
to their written words. We have an instinct which always 
makes us prefer any personal connexion to the more remote 
relationship of books. Thus Papias tells us that he sought 
to learn from every quarter the traditions of those who 
had conversed with the elders, thinking that he should 
not profit so much by the narratives of books as by the 
living and abiding voice of the Lord's disciples. And still 
Papias affirmed the exact accuracy of the Gospel of St 
Mark, and quoted testimonies {jxapTvpiai) from the Ca- 
tholic Epistles of St Peter and St John 1 . So again Ire- 
naeus in earnest language records with what joy he listened 
to the words of Polycarp, when he told of his intercourse 
with those who had seen the Lord ; and how those who 
had been with Christ spoke of His mighty works and 
teaching. And still all was according to the Scriptures 
{iravTa avfi^wva rah ypacpal?) ; so that the charm lay not 
in the novelty of the narrative, but in its vital union with 
the fact 2 . 

In three instances 3 in which it was natural to expect (a ) Their test i- 

r mony to tfte 

1 See pp. 63 ff. . to the Romans explains the absence 

3 Iren. Ep. ad Flor. ap. Euseb. of any direct allusion to St Paul's 

H. E. v. 20. Compare the passage of Epistle. The mention of St Peter 

Irenaeus (in. 3.4) quoted above, p. 34. and St Paul (c. iv.) however is 

3 The subject of Ignatius' letter worthy of notice. 



CHAP. I. 

Books of the 
New Testa- 
ment, 
(i) explicit, 



(2) incidental. 



44 The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 

a direct allusion to the Epistles of St Paul the references 
are as complete as possible. ' Take up the Epistle of the 
' blessed Paul the Apostle/ is the charge of Clement to the 

Corinthians, c in truth he spiritually charged you 

' concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos 1 ' 'Those 

e who are borne by martyrdom to God/ Ignatius writes to 
the Ephesians, 'pass through your city; ye are initiated 
6 into mysteries (avfjLfjLvaraL) with St Paul, the sanctified, 

' the martyred, worthy of all blessing who in every part 

' of his letter (iv iraarj eTTiaTcXrj) makes mention of you in 
'Christ Jesus 2 / 'The blessed and glorious Paul/ says 
Polycarp to the Philippians, ' . . .wrote letters to you, into 
' which if ye look diligently, ye will be able to be built up 
' to [the fulness of] the faith given to you 3 .' 

Elsewhere in the Apostolic Fathers there are clear 
traces of a knowledge of the Epistles of St Paul to the 
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philip- 
pians, and 1 and 2 Timothy, of the Epistle to the He- 
brews, of the Epistle of St James, the first Epistle of St 
Peter, and the first Epistle of St John. The allusions to 
the Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians, Colossians, 
to Titus, and Philemon, are very uncertain ; and there are, 
I believe, no coincidences of language with the Epistles of 
Jude, 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter 4 . 



1 Clem. c. xlvii. 

2 Ad Ephes. c. xii. The refer- 
ence in aufx/m^araL to Eph. v. 32 
seems clear when we remember the 
whole tenor of Ignatius' letter. 'Ej> 
irdo-rj i-rr. is not necessarily, I think, 
1 in every letter,' but, ' in every part 
of his letter;' compare Eph. U. 21, 
iracra OLKodo/j.^ (not irdca 77 oIk.), 
' Every part of the building.' The 
instances quoted by Hef ele are other- 
wise explained by Winer, N. T.Gram- 
matik, s. 132 (ed. 5). The passage 
is not found in the Syriac. 

3 Polyc. c. iii. 



4 The following table will be found 
useful and interesting as shewing 
how far each writer makes use of 
the books of the New Testament : 
Clement. Romans (c. xxxv.); 1 
Corinthians (c. xlvii.); Ephe- 
sians (c. xlvi.); 1 Timothy? 
(c.vii.); Titus? (c. ii.); He- 
brews (cc. xvii., xxx vi. <&c); 
James (c. x. &c.) 
Ignatius, i Corinthians (ad E- 
phes. xviii.); Ephesians (ad 
Uphes. xii.); Philippians? (ad 
Philad. viii.); 1 Thessalon- 
ians? (ad Fphes. x.); Phi- 



I.] Their Relation to the Canon. 45 

It is true 'that these incidental references are with chap. i. 
one exception anonymous. The words of Scripture are in- The peculiar 

. value of this 

wrought into the texture of the books, and not parcelled anonymous 

° A evidence 

out into formal quotations. They are not arranged with 
argumentative effect, but used as the natural expression 
of Christian truths. Now this use of the Holy Scriptures 
shews at least that they were even then widely known, 
and therefore guarded by a host of witnesses ; that their 
language was transferred into the common dialect; that it 
was as familiar to those first Christians as to us who use 
it as unconsciously as they did in writing or in conversation. 
If indeed the quotations from the Old Testament in the illustrated by 
Apostolic Fathers were uniformly explicit and exact, this fromiheout 
mode of argument would lose much of its force. But with 
the exception of Barnabas it does not appear that they 
have made a single reference by name to any one of the 
books of the Old Testament 1 ; and Barnabas quotes a pas- 
sage from St Matthew with the technical formula ' as it is 
written 2 .' Clement uses the general formula ' It is writ- 
ten/ or even more frequently f God saith,' or simply 'One 
saith 3 .' The two quotations from the Old Testament in 

lemon ? (ad Ephes. c. ii. &c). David, Esaias ; c. vi., x., xii. Moses. 

Polycarp. Acts ii. 24 (c. i.) ; Eo- 2 Barn. iv. Matt. xx. 16. The 

mans (c. vi.) ; i Corinthians reading of Cod. Sinaiticus (cbs 7^- 

(c. xi.); 2 Corinthians (cc. ii., ypairraC) removes the doubt which 

vi.) ; Galatians (cc. iii., xii.) ; naturally attached to the Latin Ver- 

Ephesians? (c. xii.); Philip- sion sicut scriptum est, and thus 

pians (c. iii., xi.); 1 Thessa- this quotation from St Matthew is 

lonians ? (c. ii., iv.); 2 Thes- the earliest direct example of the use 

salonians '? (c. xi.) ; 1 Timothy of a book of the New Testament as 

(c. iv.); 2 Timothy (c. v.); 1 Holy Scripture. 

Peter (cc. i., ii. &c.) ; 1 John In the second 'Epistle' of Clement 

(c. vii.). there is the same explicitness of re- 

Barnabas. Matthew (c. iv. cos ference as in Barnabas, c. iii. Esaias; 

yeypawraL); 1 Timothy? (c. c. vi. Ezechiel. So likewise a passage 

xii.); 2 Timothy? (c. vii.). of St Matthew's Gospel is called 

Cf. Hefele, ss. 230 — 240. 7/)a0?}(c.ii.). The fact is worth notice. 

1 Barn. Ep. c. x. : \<=yet. avrols 3 c. xxvi. (Job), <£c, Iii. (David), 

[Mojct^s] ev rep Aevrepovofity. Else- cannot be considered exceptions to 

where Barnabas mentions the wri- the rule, 
ter's name: c. iv. Daniel; c. xii. 



46 



The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 



chap. i. Ignatius are simply preceded by ' It is written.' In the 
Greek text of Polycarp there is no mark of quotation at 
all 1 ; and Clement sometimes introduces the language of 
the Old Testament into his argument without any mark 
of distinction 2 . Exactness of quotation was foreign to the 
spirit of their writing. 
How far it can Nothing: has been said hitherto of the coincidences 

be applied to ° 

tfo Gospels, between the Apostolic Fathers and the Canonical Gospels. 
From the nature of the case casual coincidences of lan- 
guage cannot be brought forward in the same manner t'> 
prove the use of a history as of a letter. The same facts 
and words, especially if they be recent and striking, may 
be preserved in several narratives. References in the sub- 
apostolic age to the discourses- or actions of our Lord as 
we find them recorded in the Gospels shew, so far as they 
go, that what the Gospels relate was then held to be true ; 
but it does not necessarily follow that they were already 
in use, and were the actual source of the passages in ques- 
tion. On the contrary, the mode in which Clement 3 refers 
to our Lord's teaching, ' the Lord said,' not ' saith,' seems 
to imply that he was indebted to tradition, and not to any 
written accounts, for words most closely resembling those 
which are still found in our Gospels. The testimony of 
. the Apostolic Fathers is to the substance, and not to the 
authenticity of the Gospels. And in this respect they have 

(cc. iv., vii.) when quoting words not 
found in the Canonical Gospels. 

There is no trace of the use of 
Apocryphal Gospels in Clement. 
Some difficulty has been felt as to 
the source of the reference in c. xliv\: 
Kdl 61 CLTTOaToXOL tj/ullov 2yvcoo~av dta 
rod Kuptof riixCov 'Ivo'ov X/ntrroO, 6tl 
Zpcs 'iarai eirl rod ovofiaros rrjs eiri~ 
o-kotttjs. Yet the words seem to con- 
tain a very natural deduction from 
such sayings of the Lord as are pre- 
served in Matt, xxiii. 8 if., xx. so if. 



1 The reading of the Latin Ver- 
sion in c. xi. sicut Paulas docet seems 
to be less open to suspicion than that 
in c. xii. ut his scripturis dictum erf 
(Ps. iv. 5 ; Eph. iv. 26), which is at 
least quite alien from Polycarp' s 
manner. 

2 E. g. cc. xxvii., liv. So also 
Ignatius ad Trail, viii. 

3 cc. xiii., xlvi. (clirev), compared 
with Acts xx. 35. The past tense 
in Ignat. ad Smyr. iii. appears to be 
of a different kind. Barnabas, on 
the other hand, uses a present tense 



I.] Their Relation to the Canon. 47 

an important work to do. They witness that the great chap. i. 
outlines of the life and teaching of our Lord were familiarly 
known to all from the first : they prove that Christianity 
rests truly on a historic basis. 

The 'Gospel' which the Fathers announce includes all ™ e J r p f t fea ~ 
the articles of the ancient Creeds 1 . Christ, we read, our 9 hri f. 8 l ¥ e 

7 J .familiarly 

God, the eternal Word, the Lord and Creator of the world, knoun - 
who was with the Father before time began 2 , humbled 
Himself, and came down from heaven, and was manifested 
in the flesh, and was born of the Virgin Mary, of the race 
of David according to the flesh ; and a star of exceeding 
brightness appeared at His birth' 3 . Afterwards He was 
baptized by John, to fulfil all righteousness ; and then, 
speaking His Father's message, he invited not the righte- 
ous, but sinners, to come to Him 4 . At length, under Herod 
and Pontius Pilate He was crucified, and vinegar and gall 
were offered Him to drink 5 . But on the first day of the 
week He rose from the dead, the first-fruits of the grave ; 
and many prophets were raised by Him for whom they had 
waited. After His resurrection He ate with His disciples, 
and shewed them that He was not an incorporeal spirit 6 . 
And He ascended into heaven, and sat down on the right 
hand of the Father, and thence He shall come to judge 
the quick and the dead 7 . 

1 On the use of oral and written ix.; ad Smyr.i.: Barn. vii. Ignatius 

Gospels in the first age, compare alludes also to anointing the head 

Gieseler, Ueber die Enstehung u. s. w. of Christ (John xii. 3), ad Ephes. 

ss. 149 sqq. Introduction to the xvii. 

Study of the Gospels, pp. 154 ff. 6 Barn. xv. : Ign. ad Magnes. ix.: 

8 Ign. ad Rom. inscr., c. iii. ; ad Clem. xxiv. : Polyc. ii. : Ign. ad 

Ephes. inscv. : ad Magnes. viii. : Barn. Magnes. ix.; ad Smyr. iii. 

v. : Ign. ad Magnes. vi. 7 Barn. xv. : Polyc. ii. : Bam. vii.: 

3 Clem. xvi. : Ign. ad Magnes. vii. : Polyc v ii. 

Barn, xii.: Ign. ad Smyr. i. ; ad There are also numerous references 

Trail, ix. ; ad Ephes. xix. : Ign. ad to discourses of our Lord which are 

Ephes. xx.; id. xix. recorded in the gospels : 

4 Ign. ad Smyr. i.; ad Bom. viii. : Clevext, c. xiii. (Luc. vi. $6 — 
Barn. v. 38, <fcc.) : c. xlvi. (Matt xxvi. 

5 Ign. ad Magnes. xi. ; ad Trail. 24). 



48 The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 

chap. i. Such, in their own words, is the testimony of the ear- 

liest Fathers to the life of the Saviour. Round these facts 
their doctrines are grouped ; on the truth of the Incarna- 
tion and the Passion and the Resurrection of Christ their 
hopes were grounded 1 . 
?oZ e a%h°o ny If the extent of the evidence of the Apostolic Fathers 
'licSx^tT' to the books of the New Testament is exactly what might 
be expected from men who had seen the Apostles, who 
had heard them, and who had treasured up their writings 
as the genuine records of their teaching, the character of 
their evidence is equally in accordance with their peculiar 
modified by position. It will be readily seen that we cannot expect 
to find in the first age the New Testament quoted as 
authoritative in the same manner as the Old Testament. 
d) thecircum- There could not indeed be any occasion for an appeal to 
time, and the testimony of the Gospels when the history of the faith 
was still within the memory of many; and most of the 
Epistles were of little use in controversy, for the earliest 
heretics denied the Apostleship of St Paul. The Old 

Ignatius, ad Ephes. vi. (Matt. me and lay hold on my kingdom must 

x. 40) : ad Trail, xi. (Matt. receive me by affliction and suffering, 

xv. 13) : ad Ephes. v. (Matt. appears to be a free reminiscence of 

xviii. 19): adPhilad.Vvi. Matt. xvi. 24, compared with Acts 

Polycarp, c. ii. (Matt. vii. xiv. 22. The passage in Ign. ad 

1 sqq.) : c. v. (Matt. xx. 28) : Smyr. iii. Take hold, handle me, and 

c. vi. (Matt. vi. 12): c. vii. see that I am not an incorporeal spirit, 

(Matt. vi. 13, xxvi. 41). is in all probability a traditional 

Barnabas, c. iv. (Matt. xx. 16, form of the words recorded in Luke 

xxv. 5 sqq.): c. v. (Matt. ix. xxiv. 39. No one of these passages 

13): c. xix. (Luc. vi. 30^: c. furnishes any ground for assuming 

v. (Matt. xxvi. 31): cf. He- that Apocryphal Gospels were used. 

fele, s. 233. Compare Introd. to the Study of the 

Barnabas has been supposed to Gospels, App. C. Gieseler, Ueber die 

refer to two sayings of our Lord not Enstehung der schrift. Evv. ss. 147 ff. 

found in our Gospels : c. iv., vii. : 1 Cf. Ign. ad Philad. viiL It is 

of these the first disappears in the very worthy of notice that there are 

original, where els irp^irei viols deov no references to the miracles of our 

represents the Latin sicut dicit filius Lord in the Apostolic Fathers. All 

Dei, which is a manifest corruption miracles are implicitly included in 

for sicut decet filios Dei. The other: the Incarnation and Resurrection of 

Christ saith They who wish to see Christ. 



I.] Their Relation to the Canon. 49 

Testament, on the contrary, was common ground; and the chap i: 
ancient system of biblical interpretation furnished the 
Christian with ready arms. When these failed it was 
enough for him to appeal to the Death and Resurrection 
of Christ, which were at once the sum and the proof of his 
faith. ' I have heard some say/ Ignatius writes, 'Unless 
•I find in the ancients [the writers of the Old Testament] I 
'believe not in the Gospel, and when I said to them It is 
'written [in the Prophets that Christ should suffer and rise 
'again], they replied [That must be proved ;] the question 
' lies before us. But to me/ he adds, 'Jesus Christ is [the 
' substance of all] records ; my inviolable records are His 
' Cross and Death and Resurrection, and the Faith through 
'Him 1 / 

It cannot however be denied that the idea of the fc) the gradual 

perception of 

Inspiration of the New Testament, in the sense m which the co-ordinate 

1 t authority of a 

it is maintained now, was the growth of time. When St NewTem- 

° ment tcitn tU 

Paul spoke 2 of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament ™J esta - 
as able to make ivise unto salvation through faith which 
is in Christ Jesus, he expressed what w r as the practical 
belief of the first century of the Christian Church. The 
Old Testament was for two or three generations a com- 
plete Bible both doctrinally and historically when inter- 
preted in the light of the Gospel. Many of the most far- 
sighted teachers, we may believe, prepared the way for 
the formation of a collection of Apostolic Writings co- 
ordinate with the writings of the Prophets, but the result 
to which they looked forward w r as achieved gradually, even 

1 Ad Pliilad. viii. The passage irpoTLOevai. Resp. VIT. $23 E, etc. 

is beset with many difficulties, but If in place of iu rots apxaiois we 

the translation which I have ven- read ^ev ro?s &:xeiois a cording to 

tured to give seems to remove many Voss' conjecture the sense would be 

of them. TlpoKeio-dcu is continually unchanged. The sudden burst of 

used of a question in debate : Plat. feeling (e/jloI de jc. r. A.) is character - 

Euthyd. 279 D, Karaye\ajTov drj- istic of Ignatius. 
irov 7rd\cu irpoKCLTai rcvro ird\tv 2 2 Tim. iii. 15. 

C. E 



50 The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 

chap. i. as the Old Testament itself was formed by slow degrees 1 . 
Distance is a necessary condition if we are to estimate 
rightly any object of vast proportions. The history of any 
period will furnish illustrations of this truth ; and the teach- 
ing of God through man appears to be always subject to 
the common laws of human life and thought. If it be 
true that a prophet is not received in his own country, it 
is equally true that he is not received in his own age. 
The sense of his power is vague even when it is deepest. 
Years must elapse before we can feel that the words of one 
who talked with men were indeed the words of God. 
which followed The successors of the Apostles did not, we admit, 
tiono/the ' recognize that the written histories of the Lord and the 
their first sue- scattered epistles of His first disciples would form a sure 

CCS SOTS 

and sufficient source and test of doctrine when the current 
tradition had grown indistinct or corrupt. Conscious of a 
life in the Christian body, and realizing the power of its 
Head, in a way impossible now, they did not feel that the 
Apostles were providentially charged to express once for 
all in their writings the essential forms of Christianity, 
even as the Prophets had foreshadowed them. The posi- 
tion which they held did not command that comprehen- 
sive view of the nature and fortunes of the Christian 
CI lurch by which the idea is suggested and confirmed. But 
they had certainly an indistinct perception that* their work 
stm the Apo- was essentially different from that of their predecessors. 
separate the They declined to perpetuate their title, though they may 
themselves. have retained their office. They attributed to them power 
and wisdom to which they themselves made no claim. 
Without having any exact sense of the completeness of the 
Christian Scriptures, they still drew a line between them 
and their own writings. As if by some providential instinct, 
each one of those teachers who stood nearest to the writers 

1 Chap. ii. § 8 sub Jin. 



I] 



Their Relation to the Canon. 



51 



of the New Testament contrasted his writings with theirs, 
and definitely placed himself on a lower level. The fact 
is most significant ; for it shews in what way the formation 
of the Canon was an act ol the intuition of the Church, 
derived from no reasoning, but realized in the course of 
its natural growth as one of the first results of its self- 
consciousness. 

Clement, the earliest of the Fathers, does not even 
write in his own name to the Church of Corinth, but sim- 
ply as the representative of the Church of Rome. He lays 
aside the individual authority of an Apostle, and the 
Epistle was well named in the next age that of the Ro- 
mans to the Corinthians 1 . He apologizes in some mea- 
sure for the tone of reproof which he himself uses, and at 
the same time refers his readers to the Epistle of the 
blessed Paul, who wrote to them 'spiritually/ and cer- 
tainly with the fullest consciousness of absolute and un- 
sparing authority 2 . 

Polycarp, in like manner, who had listened to the 
words of the loved disciple, still says afterwards that 
'neither he nor any like him is able to attain fully to 
' {Karaico\ov6riaai) the wisdom of the blessed and glo- 
rious Paul 3 .' 

Ignatius, who, if we receive the testimony of the 
writings attributed to him, seems very little likely to 
have disparaged the power of his office, still twice dis- 



CHAP I. 



1 Clem. Alex. Str. V. \i. § 81. 
Elsewhere however it is quoted in 
the same work as the Epistle of 
Clement, Str. i. 7. § 38 ; vi. 3. § 65 ; 
and even of Clement the Apostle: 
Str. IV. 17. § 107. 

2 c. vii. 'These injunctions we 

* give, beloved, not only admonishing 

* you, but putting ourselves also in 
'mind [of our duty] ; for we are in 
1 the same arena (<ev tuj clvt<$ ctkolix- 



' flan), and the same conflict is laid 
'upon us [as upon you].' 

c. xlvii. 'Take up the Epistle of 
' the blessed Paul the Apostle. What 
'did he write first to you at the be- 
1 ginning of the" Gospel? In very 
' truth he gave you spiritual injunc- 
1 tions about himself and Cephas and 
' Apollos....' 



c. 111. 



E 2 



52 



The Age of the Apostolic Fathers. [part 



General Sum- 
mary of their 
testimony. 



chap. i. claims in memorable words the idea that he wished to 
'impose his commands like Peter and Paul: they were 
' Apostles, while 1/ he adds, 'am a condemned man' (jcara- 

KpLTO^). 

Barnabas again twice reminds his readers that he 
speaks as one of them, not as a teacher, but as a member 
of Christ's Church 2 . 

It would be easy to say much more on the Apostolic 
Fathers, but enough perhaps has been said already to 
shew the value of their writings as a commentary on the 
Apostolic age 3 . They illustrate alike the language and 
the doctrines of the New Testament. They prove that 
Christianity was Catholic from the very first, uniting a 
variety of forms in one faith. They shew that the great 
facts of the Gospel-narrative and the substance of the 
Apostolic letters formed the basis and moulded the ex- 
7u great local pression of the common creed. They recognize the fitness 
importance, of a Canon, and indicate the limits within which it must 
be fixed. And their evidence is the more important when 
it is remembered that they speak to us from four great 
centres of the ancient Church — from Antioch and Alex- 
andria, from Ephesus and Rome. One Church alone is 



1 Ad Rom. iv. : O^wj Ilerpos Kal 
HavXos dear dcra o/mai vjjuv exelvoi cltto- 
cttoXol, eyu) KaraKpiros' eKelvoi eXev- 
Oepoi, eyw be p.txP l v ^ v SouXos. 'AM' 
edv wddjj direXev6epos , \r}o'od, KaXava- 
GT7}o~o\xai ev avry eXevdepos. Cf. 
ad Trull, c. iii. [Eph. xii.] The w«>rd 
was doubtless suggest- d by his actual 
condition, but it must have a spiri- 
tual meaning too. 

The passage in the Epistle to the 
Phiiadelphian-: (wpoaipvywv tQ ei'ay- 
yeXlup &>s crapKi 'Irjaou Kal tols clttj- 
aroXois (hs Trpeo-fivTeplLp £kkX7]o-lcls' 
Kal rods ir^oKp-qras be dyairCoixev bid 
rb Kal avrotis els to evayye\tou 

KarnyyeXKe'vai ad Philad. c. v.) 

seems to me to imply a collection of 



Christian books, Gospels, and Apo- 
stolic Epistles. The juxtaposition 
of Prophets {i.e. the books of the 
O. T.) with Gospel and Apostles 
is otherwise very harsh. The Epi- 
stles represent the teaching of the 
Aposties just as the Gospel repre- 
sents the historic, human, Presence 
of Jesus (not Christ merely). 

2 c. i. : ovx ws debar KaXos &X\* 
<1)S els ei; vjx^v. Cf. c. iv. 

3 It is perhaps the commentary of 
a childlike age; but iMohler has ad- 
mirably said ' audi in den geisti gen 
1 Aeusserungen des Kimles ist der 
' Keim aller mbglichen Wis^enschaf- 
'tenschon enthalten.' (Patrol. 51 ) 



I.] Their Relation to the Canon. 53 

silent. The Christians of Jerusalem contribute nothing to chap i 
this written portraiture of the age. The peculiarities of 
their belief were borrowed from a conventional system 
destined to pass away, and did not embody the permanent 
characteristics of any particular type of Apostolic doctrine. 
The Jewish Church at Pella was an accommodation, if we 
may use the word, and not a form of Christianity. How 
far its principles influenced the Church of the next age 
will be seen in the following Chapter 1 . 

1 Papias perhaps might have quotes from the Presbyter John 

been noticed id this Chapter, but I must however be considered as 

believe that he belongs properly to drawn from the Apostolic age. It 

the next generation. The testimony will be convenient to notice this 

to the Gospel of St 31 ark which he when speaking of Papias (c. ii. § i). 



CHAPTER II. 



THE AGE OF THE GREEK APOLOGISTS. 



A.D. 120 — 170. 



Ou <TLU)7ri}$ fiovov rb Zpyov, dXXct fxeytdovs ksTtv 6 Xpi<rTLavi<T/n6s. 

Ignatius. 



CHAP. II. 



THE writings of the Apostolic age were all moulded in 
the same form, and derived from the same relation of 

of the Christ- ' 

fflm^Zriod 6 Christian life. As they represented the mutual intercourse 
of believers, so they rested on the foundation of a common 
rule and shewed the peculiarities of a common dialect. 
The literature of the next age was widely different both 
in scope and character 1 . It included almost every form of 
prose composition — letters, chronicles, essays, apologies, 
visions, tales — and answered to the manifold bearings of 

occasioned by Christianity in the world 2 . The Church had then to main- 



uonofthe tain its ground amid systematic persecution, organized 

The name of the 



Church to 
ths Empire, 



heresies, and philosophic controversy 
Christian had already become a by- word 3 ; and it was evi- 
dent that they were free alike from Jewish superstition 
and Gentile polytheism 4 : they were no longer sheltered 



1 CP. Mohler, ss. T79ff. 

2 It is probable that some of the 
Christian parts of the Sibylline Ora- 
cles (Libb. vr., vii.) also fall within 
this period. Cf. Friedlieb, Oracula 
Sibyllina, Einleit. ss. lxxi., Hi. 

Very little is known of the pro- 
phecies of Hystaspes. Cf. Lucke, 
Comm. ii. d. Schriften des Ev. Johan- 
nes, iv. 1. ss. 45 f. 

3 Just. Mart. Ap. 1. 4. (p. 10, n. 4. 
Otto.) 



4 Ep. ad Diogn. i. : opCj ... virep- 
eo-irovdaKOTa ae rr\v deoatfieiav rdv 
'Kpi&Ttav&v fj.a6eiv...Tlvi re Oe$ rre- 
iroidores, koX ttQs Op-no- Kevovres . . .otire 
roi)? pofufafAe'i'ovs virb tQv 'EXXt^cuv 
0eoi)s Xoylfovrai, oiire ttjv 'loudalur 
deiaidcuiJ.oviapipvXdo'crovo'i... The whole 
passage is very interesting as shew- 
ing how the object and form of 
Christian worship, and the character 
of the Christian life, would strike a 
thoughtful man at the time. 



part i.] The Age of the Greek Apologists. 55 

by the old title of Jews, and it became needful that they chap, il 
should give an account of the faith for which they sought 
protection. The Apostolic tradition was insufficient to to n 
silence or condemn false teachers who had been trained 
in the schools of Athens or Alexandria ; but now that 
truth was left to men it w^as upheld by wisdom. New and to PkOo*o- 
champions were raised up to meet the emergency; and 
some of these did not scruple to maintain the doctrines of 
Christianity in the garb of philosophers. 

But although the entire literature of the age was thus Th* remain* 

Of ft flOiC ' 'Y f 

varied, the fragments of it w T hich are left scarcely do more are scanty. 
than witness to its extent. The letter to Diognetus, the 
Clementine Homilies, the Testaments of the twelve Patri- 
archs, and some of the writings of Justin, alone survive in 
their original form. In addition to these there are two 
Latin translations of the Shepherd of Hermas, as well as 
a large fragment of the original Greek, a Syriac transla- 
tion of the Apology of Melito, and a series of precious quo- 
tations from lost books, preserved chiefly by the industry 
of Eusebius 1 . The Enar rations of Papias, the Treatises of 
Justin and Agrippa Castor against Heresies, the numerous 
works of Melito with the exception of the Apology, the 
Chronicles of Hegesippus, have perished, and with them 
the most natural and direct sources of information on the 
history of this period of the Church. 

It does not however seem to have been a mere acci- Yet Justin rt- 
dent which preserved the writings of Justin. As the Apo- SS/o/ 
logists were the truest representatives of the age, so was logut, and*? 
he in many respects the best type of the natural character 
of the Greek Apologist. For him philosophy was truth, 
reason a spiritual power, Christianity the fulness of both. 
The Apostolic Fathers exhibit their faith in its inherent 
energy ; their successors shew in what way it was the 

1 Collected by Routh, Relliquice Sacrce (FA. ?, Oxon. 1S46). 



56 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. satisfaction of the deepest wants of humanity — the sum of 
all ' knowledge ;' it was reserved for the Latin Apologists 
to apprehend its independent claims, and establish its 
right to supplant, as well as to fulfil what was partial and 
vague in earlier systems. The time was not ripe for this 
when Justin wrote, for there is a natural order in the 
development of truth. As Christianity was shewn to be 
the true completion of Judaism before the Church was 
divided from the synagogue ; so it was well that it should 
be clearly set forth as the centre to which old philosophies 
converged before it was declared to supersede them. In 
each case the fulfilment and interpretation of the old was 
the groundwork and beginning of the new. The pledge 
of the future lay in the satisfaction of the past. 
Th* first work This then was one great work of the time, that Apo- 
the settlement logists should proclaim Christianity to be the Divine 

of the relation . . _ TX . - , . 1 

of Christianity answer to the questionings ot Heathendom, as well as the 
d»m. antitype to the Law, and the hope of the Prophets. To a 

great extent the task was independent of the direct use of 
Scripture. Those who discharged it had to deal with the 
thoughts, and not with the words of the Apostles — with 
the facts, and not with the records of Christ's life. Even 
the later Apologists abstained from quoting Scripture in 
their addresses to heathen; and the practice was still more 
alien from the object and position of the earliest 1 . The 
arguments of philosophy and history were brought for- 
ward first, that men might be gradually familiarized to 
the light; the use of Scripture was for a while deferred 
(dilatce paulisjier divince lectiones), that they might not be 
blinded by the sudden sight of its unclouded glory 2 . 
Thfmond The recognition of Christianity as a revelation which 

1 Justin's use of the prophecies of in § 7. 
the Old Testament is no exception a Lactant. Instit. v. 4. 

to the rule ; but this will be noticed 



I] 



The Age of the Greek A2oologists. 



57 



had not only a general, but also in some sense a special chap. ii. 
message for the heathen was co-ordinate with its final work of the pe- 

° t riod — the sepa- 

separation from the Mosaic ritual 1 . This separation was ration of 

r L ^ Christianity 

the second great work of the period. It is difficult to fymnJuda- 

o t r ism. 

trace the progress of its consummation, though the result 
was the firm establishment of the Catholic Church. But a reaction. 
by the immediate reaction which accompanied it one type 
of Apostolic Christianity was brought out with great 
clearness, without which the circle of its secondary deve- 
lopments would have been incomplete. The old party of 
the Circumcision once again rose up to check the revolu- 
tion which was on the eve of accomplishment. Yet the The crisis by 

n . i • t i • i ,i ,*.« which this was 

conflict which was then carried on was not the repetition, brought about. 
but the sequel of that of the Apostolic age 2 . The great 
crisis out of which it sprang impressed it with a peculiar 
character. The Christians of Jerusalem had clung to their 
ancient law, till their national hopes seemed to be crushed 
for ever by the building of iElia, and the establishment of 
a Gentile Church within the Holy City. Then at length 
men saw that they were already in the new age — the 
world to come : they saw that the kingdom of heaven, as 



1 Just. Mart. Ap. T. 4^: 01 pera 
\6yov (BubaavTes ~Kpio~Tiavol elcri ko\v 
&6eoi evofxtcdrfaav, olov €i/"bjX\r)cn fxev 
Sw/cpdr^s Kal 'H, d^Xctros Kal oi 
SfiOLoc at/roTs, £v (3ap(3dpoi$ 5£'A/3pa- 
dfx...Ct. Ap. 11. 13. 

2 Some modern writers have con- 
founded together the different steps 
by which the distinction of Jew and 
Gentile were removed intheChristian 
Church. Since it is of great import- 
ance to a right understanding of the 
early history of Christianity that 
they should be clearly distinguished, 
it may not be amiss to mention them 
here : 

1. The admission of Gentiles (in 
the first instance eveepeTs) to the 
Christian Church. Acts x., xi. 



2. The freedom of Gentile con- 
verts from the Ceremonial Law. Acts 
xv. 

3. The indifference of the Cere- 
monial Law for Jewish converts. 
Gal. ii. 14 — 16; Acts xxi. 20—26. 

4. The incompatibility of Juda- 
ism with Christianity. 

The first three— that is the essen- 
tia! — principles are recognized in 
Scripture ; the last, which intro- 
duces no new element, is evolved in 
the history of the Church. This is 
an instance of the true develop- 
ment,' which organizes, but does not 
create. 

The first three stages are fully 
discussed by Dr Lightfoot, Gala" 
tians, Essay hi. pp. 276 ff. 



58 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. distinguished from the typical kingdom of Israel, was now 
set up; and it seemed that the Gospel of St Paul was to be 
the common law of its citizens. Under the pressure of these 
circumstances the Judaizing party naturally made a last 
How u was effort to regain their original power. It was only possible 
from the con- to maintain what had ceased to be national by asserting 
Apostolic age. that it was universal. The discussions of the first age 
were thus reproduced in form, but they had a wider bear- 
ing. The struggle was not for independence but for domi- 
nion. The Gentile Christians no longer claimed tolerance, 
but supremacy. They had been established on an equality 
with the Jewish Church; but now, when they were on the 
point of becoming paramount, the spirit which had op- 
posed St Paul was roused to its greatest activity. 
its influence Apart from heretical writings the effect of this move- 

on Christian , -i ij • r ,i , 

Literature, ment may be traced under various lorms in the contem- 
porary literature. The orthodox members of the Hebrew 
Churches were not uninfluenced by the general movement 
which agitated the body to which they belonged. They 
were impelled to write, and their activity took a charac- 
teristic direction. As the Apologists represent the Greek 
element in the Church, so the Jewish is represented 
by the chroniclers Papias and Hegesippus. The ten- 
dency to that which is purely rational and ideal is thus 
contrasted with that towards the sensuous and the ma- 
terial 1 . 
The literature In one respect however Christian literature still pre- 
whoiiy Greek, served the same form as in the Apostolic age. It was 
wholly Greek : the work of the Latin churches was as yet 

1 The Clementines stand in a pe- archs are in the main orthodox in 

culiar position as the embodiment of doctrine, and recognize the authority 

individual rather than popular opi- of St Paul, while they contain at the 

nion ; and it is perhaps due to this same time a very remarkable esti- 

fact that they have been preserved. mate of the priestly claims of Levi. 

The Testaments of the Twelve Patri- See Ch. iv. 



I] 



Papias. 



to be wrought in silence 1 . It is the more important to chap. ii. 
notice this, because the permanent characteristics of the 
national literatures of Greece and Rome reappear with 
powerful effect in patristic writings. On the one side The effect of 
there is universality, freedom, large sympathy, deep feel- 
ing: on the other there is .individuality, system, order, 
logic. The tendency of the one mind is towards truth, 
of the other towards law 2 . In the end, when the object 
is the highest truth and the deepest law, they will achieve 
the same results, but the process will be different. This 
difference is not without its bearing on the history of the 
New Testament. From their very constitution Greek 
writers would be inclined in the first, instance to witness, 
not to the Canon of Scripture, but to the substance of its 
teaching. 

§ i. Papias. 

The first and last names of this period — Papias and The date of 
Hegesippus — belong to the early Christian chroniclers, 
who have been taken to represent the Judaizing party of 
the time. Papias, a friend of Polycarp, was Bishop of 
Hierapolis in Phrygia 3 in the early part of the second 
century. According to some accounts he was a disciple 
of the Apostle St John 4 ; but Eusebius, who was acquaint- 
ed with his writings, affirms that his teacher was the Pres- 
byter and not the Apostle; and the same conclusion ap- 
pears to follow from his own language 5 . 



Papiaa. 



1 Of the Greek literature of the 
Italian Churches we shall speak here- 
after. 

2 As a familiar instance of these 
characteristic differences we may re- 
fer to the marked distinction in form 
and tone between the Nicene (Greek) 
and the Athanasian (Latin) Creeds. 

3 This follows fromHieron. de Virr. 
HI. 1 8 ; Papias ... Hierapolitanus 
Episcopus in Asia; and also from a 



comparison of Euseb. E. E. ill. 36, 

39> 31- 

4 This is maintained by Routh, 1. 
p. 22, sqq. On the other hand, cf. 
Davidson, Introd. I. 425, sqq. 

5 Euseb. H. E. in. 39. ' I used 
'to inquire,' he says, 'when I met 
'any who had been acquainted with 
'the Elders, of the teaching of the 
• Elders — what Andrew or Peter said 
1 (direv) ... or John or Matthew ... or 



60 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. A church was formed at Hierapolis in very early 

The character times 1 ; and it afterwards became the residence of 'the 

&f his See* 

Apostle Philip and his daughters 2 / whose tomb was shewn 
there in the third century 3 . This fact seems to point to 
some close connexion with the churches of Judsea; but 
the city was also remarkable in another respect. The 
Epistle of St Paul to the neighbouring church of Colossse 
proves that even in the Apostolic age the characteristic 
extravagance of the province — the home of the Galli and 
Corybantes — was already manifested in the corruption of 
Christianity; and it is not unreasonable to attribute the 
extreme Chiliasm of Papias to the same influence 4 . 



1 any other of the Lord's disciples ; as 
1 what Aristion and the Eider (Pres- 
' byter) John, the Lord's disciples, say 
1 {Ktyovaiv).' The natural interpreta- 
tion of these words can only be that 
the Apost.es— Elders in the highest 
sense, I Pet. v. i — were already dead 
when Papias began his investiga- 
tions, and that he distinguished two 
of the name of John, one an Apostle, 
and another the Presbyter who was 
a^ive at that time. Cf. Davidson, 
I. c. 

1 Coloss. iv. 13. It is said that Pa- 
pias s; ffered martyrdom (Steph. Go- 
bar, ap. Cave, I. 29) at Peigamus in 
the time of Aurelius (a.d. 164), under 
whom PoLcarp and Justin Martyr 
also suffered (Ohron. Alex. I. c). 

His work was probably written 
at a late period of his lite (c. 140 — 
150), since he speaks of those who 
had been disciples of the Apostles as 
now dead. His inquiries were made 
some time before he wrote {avtKpi- 
vov), and he had treasured up the 
tradition in his memory (kolXQs £/jlvt)- 
fiopeixra). The necessity for such 
a work as his would not indeed be 
felt, as Rettig has well observed, till 
the first generation after the Apostles 
had passed away. Cf. Thiersch, Ver- 
tuch u. s. w. s. 438. 



2 Euseb. E. E. in. 31. Cf. Routh r 
11. 25. 

3 Euseb. H. E. III. 31, on the au- 
thority of Caius. 

4 The peculiar form which this 
Chiliasm took is seen best in the 
narrative given on the authority of 
'presbvters who saw John the dis- 
'ciple of the Lord' by Irerueus. 'The 
1 da s will come, ' thus they represent- 
ed the Lord teaching, 'in which 
'vines will spring up, each having 
' ten thousand stems and on one stem 
'ten thousand branches, and on each 
'branch ten thousand shoots, and on 
'each shoot ten thousand clusters, 
'and on each cluster ten thousand 
' grapes, and each grape when pressed 
' shall give five and twenty measures 
'of wine. And wh< n any of the saints 
'shad have taken hold or one cluster, 
' another shall cry out : I am a better 
'clus er, take me, through me bless 
'the Lord.' ..'These things,' Irenae- 
us goes on to say, 'Papias also tes- 
' tifies iu the fourth of his books, and 
'added moreover: These things are 
'credible to bel evers. And when 
'Judas the traitor believed not, and 
'asked How then will such produc- 
tions be brought about by the Lord? 
'he relates that the Lord said They 
1 shall see who shall come to t/mst 



t] Papias. 61 

Since he stood on the verge of the first age Papias chap. ii. 
naturally set a -high value on the Evangelic traditions still An account </ 

. his work. 

current in the Church. These he preserved, as he tells 
us, with zeal and accuracy; and afterwards embodied them 
in five books, entitled 'An Exposition of Oracles of the * 
Lord' (Aoytcov /cupta/coop igoyrjcri? 1 ). There is however no 
reason to suppose that he intended to compose a Gospel ; 
and the very name of his treatise seems to imply the con- 
trary. The traditions which he collected do not appear 
to have formed the staple of his book ; but they were in- 
troduced as illustrative of his exposition. s Moreover,' he His own de- 

* • scrtptton of it • 

says, 'I must tell you that I shall not scruple to place 
' side by side with my interpretations all that I ever rightly 
'learnt from the elders and rightly remembered, solemnly 
'affirming that it is true 2 / The apologetic tone of the 
sentence, its construction (Si), the mention of his inter- 
pretations (at epfirjvelaL), convey the idea that his reference itwasexpod- 
to tradition might seem unnecessary to some, and that it narrative. 

' times. 1 (Iren. V. 33.) It is not * [At the time of the restoration of 

difficult to see the true Evangelic ' all things,] as the presbyter say, 

element which lies at the bottom of ' they who have been held worthy of 

this strange tradition. * life in heaven shall go thither, and 

1 Pap. ap. Euseb. H. E. ill. 39: ' others shall enjoy the indulgence of 
ovk 6kvt)jco de aot /ecu oaa irork irapa ' Paradise, and others shall possess 
r&v irpeafivTepuv kclXQs ept-adov kclI ' the splendour of the City ; for every- 
KaXQs e/JLvnfj.'w^vo'a, cvyKaTard^ai 'where the Saviour shall be seen as 
reus €pfxr)V€lacs, diaj3e[daLOVfjL€vos 'they who see Him shall be worthy. 
virtp avT&v a\rjd€Lai>, k.t.X. It is * This distinction of dwelling, they 
important to notice that the title 'taught, exists between those who 
is without the definite article, just 'brought forth a hundred; old, and 
as ILpdteis dirocrToXuu. 'those who brought forth sixty-fold, 

2 In accordance with this view of ' and those who brought forth thirty- 
Papias' book we find him mentioned 'fold (Matt. xiii. 8)... and it was for 
with Clement, Pant&nus, and Am- ' this reason the Lord said that in 
monius, as 'one of the ancient In- ' His Father's house (eu rots rod Ha- 
1 terpreters (e^rjyrjTQu) who agreed to ' rpos) are many mansions (John xiv. 
'understand the Hexaemeron as re- '2).' Indeed, from the similar mode 
'ferring to Christ and the Church.' of introducing the story of the vine, 
(fr. ix., x.) The passage quoted by which is afterwards referred to Pa- 
Iren^eus from 'the Elders' \y. ad f.) pias'(p. 60, note 4), it is reasonable 
may probably be taken as a speci- to conjecture that this interpreta- 
men of his style of interpretation. tion is one from Papias' Exposition. 



62 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



Papias 1 testi- 
mony to the 
Gospels. 



chap. ii. was in fact only a secondary object: — in other words, 
they imply that there were already recognized records of 
the teaching of Christ which he sought to expound. For 
this purpose he might well go back to the Apostles them- 
selves, and 'make it his business to inquire what they 
'said,' believing 'that the information which he could 
'draw from books was not so profitable as that which 
'was preserved in a living tradition 1 .' 

This conclusion, which we have drawn from the appa- 
rent aim of Papias' work, is strongly confirmed by the 
direct testimony which he bears to our Gospels. It has 
been inferred already that some Gospel was current in his 
time ; he tells us that the Gospels of St Matthew and St 
st Matthew. Mark were so. Of the former he says: 'Matthew com- 
' posed the oracles in Hebrew; and each one interpreted 
'them as he was able 2 .' The form of the sentence (jiev 
ovv) would seem to introduce this statement as the result 
of some inquiry, and it may perhaps be referred to the 
presbyter John ; but all that needs to be particularly re- 
marked is that when Papias wrote the Aramaic Gospel of 
St Matthew was already accessible to Greek readers : the 
time was then past when each one was his own inter- 
preter. 



1 Eusebius, I. c. gives some ac- 
count of the traditional stories which 
he collected ; among others he men- 
tions that of 'a woman accused be- 
fore our Lord of many sins.' gene- 
rally identified with the disputed 
pericope, John vii. 53 — viii. 1 1. To 
these must be added the account of 
Judas (fr. iii. Routh). 

'The books' of which Papias speaks 
may have been some of the strange 
mystical commentaries current at 
very early times among the Simoni- 
ans and Valentinians. 

2 Euseb. 1. c. : MarOaTos fxh ofo 
'E/3pcu5i StctXe'/craj ra \6yia avveypd- 
xf/aro' ijp/jir)V€VJ€ o' aura ws r\v du- 



varbs €kcl<ttos. It is difficult to give 
the full meaning of t& \6yia, tcl kv- 
piaKa \6yia — the Gospel — the sum 
of the w 7 ords and works of the Lord. 

The sense, I believe, would be 
best expressed in this passage by the 
translation ' Matthew composed his 
Gospel in Hebrew,' giving to the 
word its necessary notion of scrip- 
tural authority. Cf. Acts vii. 38 ; 
Eom. iii. 2 ; Heb. v. 12 ; 1 Pet. iv. 
11. Polyc. ad Phil. 0. vii.; Clem. 
ad Cor. 1. 19, 53. 

Davidson {In trod. I. 65, sqq.) has 
reviewed the other interpretations of 
the word. 



I.] Papias. 63 

The account which he gives of the Gospel of St Mark chap ir. 
is full of interest: ' This also/ he writes, 'the Elder [John] stMAKK. 
'used to say. Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, 
'wrote accurately all that he remembered 1 ; though he did 
'not [record] in order that which was either said or done 
' by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed 
' Him ; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] 
'Peter, who used to frame his teaching to meet the [imme- 
' diate] wants [of his hearers] ; and not as making a con- 
' nected narrative of the Lord's discourses. So Mark com- 
' mitted no error, as he wrote down some particulars just 
' as he recalled them to mind. For he took heed to one 
' thing — to omit none of the facts that he heard, and to 
'state nothing falsely in [his narrative of] them' 2 .' 

It has however been argued that the Gospel here objection from 
described cannot be the Canonical Gospel of St Mark, of st Mark's 
since that shews at least as clear an order as the other 
Gospels. On this hypothesis we must seek for the original 
record of which John spoke in ' the Preaching of Peter' 
(KYjpvyfAa Uerpov), or some similar work 3 . In short, weitsconse- 
must suppose that two different books were current under 

1 The ifJLvrjiJ,6v€V(r€v here and aire- otire iraprjKoXoTjOrio'ev avrcp ' varepov 
lULvrjfJLOvevaev below are ambiguous. de, ws £0^, Herpu), 6s irpbs ras XP €l - 
They may mean either ' remember- as eiroietro ras 5idao~Ka\ias, a\\' ovx 
ed' or 'related.' In the latter case cocnrep avvra^iv tCjv KvpiaK&v 7tolotj- 
the sense would be that Mark 're- fxevos \byuv d}o~re ov5ei> rifxapre Map- 
corded all that Peter related.' The kos ovtws Zvia ypdxj/as <bs airepLvrjiib- 
change of subject would be abrupt, vevaev' evbs yap eiroirjjaro irpbvoiav, 
but is not unexampled. On the rod pajdh lou rJKovae 7rapa\nre?v rj 
other hand, Papias uses the same \j/e6cracrdai ri ev avrois. 

word iivqfAoveveiv elsewhere in the Burton and Heinichen rightly read 

sense ' to remember,' where there can \bywv, for which Routh has Xoyiuv. 

be no doubt as to its meaning. See I do not think that Xoyiw could 

p. 6i, n. t. stand in such a sense. As the word 

2 Euseb. I. c. : /cat rovro 6 irpeafiv- occurs again directly, and was used 
T€pos ZXeye' MdpKos fih epix-qvevr^s in the title of Papias' book, the 
Uerpov yev6,uevos baa efivrj/mopevaev error was natural. 

aKpipus gypaxpev, ov [levroi rd^ei ra 3 Schwegler, I. 458 ff. ; Baur, Kri- 

virb rod Xptarov f} XexOevra 7) irpa- tische Uniersuchungen, 538 f. 
Xdivra' otire yap rJKOvo~e rod Kvpiov 



64 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap 11. the same name in the times of Papias and Irenaeus — that 
in the interval, which was less than fifty years, the older 
document had passed entirely into oblivion, or at least 
wholly lost its first title — that this substitution of the one 
book for the other was so secret that there is not the slightest 
trace of the time, the motive, the mode, of its accomplish- 
ment, and so complete that Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and 
Eusebius, applied to the later Gospel what was really 
only true of that which it had replaced 1 . And all this 
must be believed, because it is assumed that John could 
not have spoken of our present Gospel as not arranged 'in 
order.' But it would surely be far more reasonable to con- 
clude that he was mistaken in his criticism than to admit 
an explanation burdened with such a series of improba- 
Howwemiist bilities 2 . There is however another solution of the diffi- 

understand 

hi* words. cu lty which seems preferable. The Gospel of St Mark is 
not a complete Life of Christ, but simply a memoir of 
' some events ' in it. It is not a chronological biography, 
but simply a collection of facts which seemed suited to the 
wants of a particular audience. St Mark had no personal 
acquaintance with the events which he recorded to enable 
him to place them in their natural order, but was wholly 
dependent on St Peter; and the special object of the 
Apostle excluded the idea of a complete narrative. The 
sequence observed in his teaching was moral, and not his- 
torical. That the arraugement of the other Synoptic Evan- 
gelists very nearly coincides with that of St Mark is nothing 
to the point : John does not say that it was otherwise. He 
merely shews, from the circumstances under which St 
Mark wrote, that his Gospel was necessarily neither chro- 
nological nor complete ; and under similar conditions — as 

1 Iren. tii. i. i ; Clem. Alex. ap. 2 Cf. Pavidpon, Infrod. i. 158 pq.. 

Eust'b.if. E. VI. 14; Ovig. ap. Euseb. who supposes that John waa ' mis- 
II. E. vi. 25 ; Euseb. H. E. 11. 15. taken in his opinion.' 



I.] 



Papias. 



Go 



in the case of St Matthew 1 — it is reasonable to look for a chap. ii. 
like result 2 . 

In addition to the Gospels of St Matthew and St ms testimcn 
Mark, Papias appears to have been acquainted with the Gospel*' 
Gospel of St John 3 . Eusebius also says explicitly that he 
quoted 'the former Epistle of John, and that of Peter ij OH 3r. 
likewise 4 .' He maintained moreover 'the divine inspira- z 
tion' of the Apocalypse, and commented at least upon part apocaotse. 
of it 5 . 

There is however one great chasm in his testimony. 
Though he was the friend of Polycarp, he nowhere alludes Bvthemake* 
to any of the Pauline writings. It cannot be an accident the writings of 

J ° • St Paul. 

Luke. 
and Pouth (fr. xi.) is taken from the 



1 Euseb. H.E. in. 24:' Mar 9a?os 
fikv yap irpbrepov 'E/3pcu'ots Krjpv^as, 
cbs f-fieXXev /cat i(j> erepovs ievai, ira- 
rpicp yXioTrr} ypacprj irapa8oi)s to Kar 
avrbv evayy eXiov, to Xeiirov ttj avrov 
irapovuia toijtols dcp' uv ecrreAXero 
8ia ttjs ypacpr)s direirX^pov. The writ- 
ten Gospel was the sum of the oral 
Gospel. The oral Gospel was not, 
as far as we can see, a Life of 
Christ, but a selection of represen- 
tative events from it, suited in its 
great outlines to the general wants 
of the Church, and adapted by the 
several Apostles to the peculiar re- 
quirements of their special audi- 
ences — evta, ov rd£a, 7rpos tcLs xpetas 
[t&v clkovovtuv.'] H. E. in. 39. 

2 No conclusion can be drawn from 
Eusebius' silence as to express testi- 
monies of Papias to the Gospel of 
St John, as we are ignorant of his 
special plan, and the title of his 
book shews that it was not intended 
to include all 'the oracles of the 
Lord.' See p. 61, n. 2. 

3 There is also an allusion to it 
in the quotation from the 'Elders' 
found in Irenaeus (Lib. v. ad /.), 
which probab'y was taken from Pa- 
pias (fr. v. Pouth, et nott.). The 
Latin passage containing a reference 
to the Gospel which is published as 
a fragment of 'Papias' by Grabe 



'Dictionary' of a mediaeval Papias 
quoted by Grabe upon the passage, 
and not from the present Papias. 
The ' Dictionary ' exists in MS. both 
at Oxford and Cambridge. I am in- 
debted to the kindness of a friend 
for this explanation of what seemed 
to be a strange forgery. 

4 Euseb. H. E. in. 39: KexpV 1 "^ 
pLaprvpiais dirb tt)s 'Itodvvov irportpas 
€Trio~ToXr)S, Kalr'fjsIleTpovdp.OLcos. The 
language of Eusebius is remarkable: 
i) 'ludvvov irpoTepa, and 7/ Tlerpov 
— not 7} 'lwdvvov irpdoTrj and 7/ Uerpov 
irporepa, as in H.E. v. 8. Can he 
be quoting the titles which Papias 
gave to them? In the fragment 
on the Canon (see below, § n) two 
Epistles only of St John are men- 
tioned ; and the very remarkable 
Latin MS. of the Epistles B. M. 
Marl. 1772, has in the first hand 
Petri Epistola, as the heading of the 
First Epistle, and no heading to the 
Second Epistle ; but the capricious- 
ness of the scribe in this respect 
makes the significance of the omis- 
sion uncertain. . 

5 Andreas, Proleg. in Apoc. (fr. 
viii. Pouth.) A quotation from Pa- 
pias occurs in Cramer s Catena in 
Apoc. xii. 9 (viii. p. 360). 



68 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. ,ii. 



The distinc- 
tion between 
the Jewish 
and Gentile 
Churches in 
the Apostolic 
aye. 



to be looked 
for also in 
the next. 



that he omits all these — the Epistles of St Paul, the Gos- 
pel of St Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles 1 — and these 
alone of the acknowledged books of the New Testament. 
The cause of the omission must be sought for deeper than 
this; and it will then be seen that the limited range of his 
evidence gives it an additional reality. 

As we gain a clearer and fuller view of the Apostolic 
age it becomes evident that the fusion between the Gen- 
tile and Judaizing Christians was far less perfect than we 
are at first inclined to suppose. Both classes indeed were 
essentially united by sharing in a common spiritual life, 
but the outward barriers which separated them had not 
yet been removed. The elder Apostles gave to Barnabas 
and Paul the right hand of fellowship, but at the same 
time they defined the limits of their teaching 2 . This 
division of missionary labour was no compromise, but a 
gracious accommodation to the needs of the time. As 
Christianity was apprehended more thoroughly the causes 
which necessitated the distinction lost their force; but the 
change was neither sudden nor abrupt. It would have 
been contrary to reason and analogy if differences recog- 
nized by the Apostles and based on national characteris- 
tics had either wholly disappeared at their death or had been 
at once magnified into schisms. If this were implied in 
the few but precious memorials of the first age, then it 
might well be suspected that they gave an unfaithful pic- 
ture of the time; but on the contrary, just in proportion 
as we can trace in them each separate principle which 
existed from the first must it be felt that there is a truth 
and reality in the progress of the Church by which all the 



1 In his account of the fate of Ju- 
das Iscariot (Fragm. Hi.) there is a 
remarkable divergence from the nar- 
rative in Matt, xxvii. 5 and Acts i. 
18. But there is no sufficient rea- 



son to suppose that he confounded 
Philip the Deacon with the Apostle 
of the same name. 
2 Gal. ii. 7—9. 



I.] Papias. G7 

conditions of *its development suggested by reason or chap. ir. 
experience are satisfied. 

It is in this way that the partial testimony of Papias Papiasuas 
furnishes a characteristic link in the history of Christianity. tati7c P o/u!c 
As far as can be conjectured from the scanty notices of his 
life, he was probably of Jewish descent, and constitution- 
ally inclined to Judaizing views 1 . In such a man any 
positive reference to the teaching of St Paul would have 
been unnatural. He could not condemn him, for he had 
been welcomed by the other Apostles as their fellow- 
labourer, and Polycarp had early rejoiced to recognize his 
claims : he could not feel bound to witness to his au- 
thority, for his sympathies were with c the circumcision/ to 
whom St Paul was not sent 2 . He stands as the repre- The value of 

„ 1# his evidence on 

sentative ot 'the lwelve, and witnesses to every book this account. 
which the next generation commonly received in their 
name. His testimony is partial; but its very imperfection 
is not only capable of an exact explanation, but is also in 
itself a proof that the Christianity of the second age was a 
faithful reflexion of the teaching of the Apostles 3 . In his 

1 Euseb. H. E. III. 36: dv^p rd authentic memorial of the time. The 
irdvra qtl fidXio-ra Xoyubraros (in mention of ' the Apostle Paul' (c. ii.) 
all respects of the greatest erudition) by Ignatius admirably accords with 
Kal TTjs ypacpijs eldrj/muv. This his character; and the whole scene 
disputed clause is quite consistent before Trajan could scarcely have 
with what Eusebius says elsewhere been invented at a later time. The 
(ill. 39) : o~<p65pa yap tol ajuuKpbs ui> history contains coincidences of lan- 
rbv vovv, d>s dv e/c tQv avrov \6ywv guage with the Epistles of St Paul to 
TeKfjLnpdfJLevov elireTy, [6 II<Z7rias] (pal- the Romans (c. iii.), I and 2 Corin- 
verat. The preponderance of exter- thians (c. ii.), Galatians (c. ii.), and 
nal evidence is in its favour; and i Timothy (c. iv). At the close of the 
the omission of it by Rufinus is first chapter there is also aremarkablj 
quite consistent with his rules of similarity of metaphor with i Pet. 
translation. i. 19. But the parallelism between 

2 Gal. ii. 9. many parts of the narrative wuh 

3 In speaking of Papias as the the Acts is still more worthy of no- 
first Chronicler of the Church, it tice, because, from the nature of 
would perhaps have been right to the case, references to that book 
except the authors of the * Martyr- are comparatively rare in early writ- 
dom of Ignatius.' The substance ings. See especially chapp. iv., v. 
at least of the narrative seems an 

F 2 



68 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. 



[part 



CHAP. II. 



case even partiality did not degenerate into exclusiveness. 
The force of this distinction will be obvious from a memo- 
rable contrast. For the converse of the judgment of Papias 
was already formed by his contemporary Marcion, but with 
this difference, that while Papias passed in silence over 
the Pauline writings Marcion definitely excluded all except 
these from his Christian Canon 1 . 



The evidence 
of the second 
generation 
after the 
Apostles not 
confined to 
Papias. 



His testimony 
is completed 
by that of 
other 'Elders.' 



§ 2. The Elders quoted by Irenceus. 

Papias is not however the only representative of those 
who had been taught by the immediate disciples of the 
Apostles. Irenseus has preserved some anonymous frag- 
ments of the teaching of others who occupied the same 
position as the Bishop of Hierapolis; and the few sen- 
tences thus quoted contain numerous testimonies to books 
of the New Testament, and fill up that which is left want- 
ing by his evidence 2 . Thus 'the elders, disciples of the 
' Apostles/ as he tells us, speak of c Paradise, to which the 
' Apostle Paul was carried, and there heard words unutter- 
'able to us in our present state' (2 Cor. xii. 4) 3 . In ano- 
ther place he records the substance of that which he had 
heard 'from an Elder who had heard those who had seen 
' the Apostles and had learnt from them/ to the effect that 



1 Fee Chap. iv. 

2 They have been collected by 
Routh, Eelliquice Sacrce, I. 47 sqq. 
Eusebius notices the quotations, but 
did not know their source {HE. v. 
8). It is clear that Irenseus appeals 
to several authorities ; and it ap- 
pears also that he quoted traditions 
as well as writings: e.g. IV. 27 (45), 
Audivi a quodam Presbytero, &c. 
IV. 31 (49), Talia qusedam enar- 
rans de antiquis Presbyter reficiebat 
110s et dicebat, dbc. The other forms 
of quotation are: virb rod KpeiTTovos 
i)p.Cov eip7)Tcu. (1. Pref. 2)— 6 Kpdo-awv 



(sic) rjfJiQv ecprj (1. 13. 3) — quidam 
dixit superior nobis (ill. 17. 4) — ex 
veteribus quidam ait (ill. 23. 3) — se- 
nior Apostolorum discipulus dispu- 
tabat (IV. 32. 1) — \iyovo-Lu 01 irpea- 
pvrepoi t&v 'AttocttoXuv /j.adrjTai (v. 
5. 1) — 2(pr) res t&v Trpopep-nKOTcov (v. 
17. 4) — quidam ante nos dixit (iv. 
41. 2) — 6 Oeios Trpea/3vT7js /cat Krjpv^ 
TTJs a\r}d€ias...€Tri(3€(36r)K€...dTru)v (1. 
15.6). The last precedes some Iam- 
bic lines against Marcus: cf. Grabe, 
in loc. 

3 Iren. v. 5. 1 ; Fr. vii. (Routh). 



l] The Elders. 09 

'the correction drawn from the Scriptures was sufficient chap. n. 

* for the ancients in those matters which they did without 

' the counsel of the Spirit.' In the course of the argument, 

after instances from the Old Testament, the Elder alludes 

to 'the Queen of the South' (Matt. xii. 42), the Parable of 

the Talents (Matt. xxv. 27), .the fate of the traitor (Matt. 

xxvi. 24), the judgment of disbelievers (Matt. x. 15) ; and 

also makes use of the Epistles to the Romans (as St Paul's), 

to the Corinthians (the First by name), and to the Ephe- 

sians, and probably to the First Epistle of St Peter 1 . In 

another place an Elder appears to, allude to the Gospels of 

St Matthew and St John 2 . 

Thus each great division of the New Testament is Thus this ge- 
again found to be recognized in the simultaneous teaching wftnegsesto 
of the Church. We have already traced in the disciples ««*©» of the 

r i a i i • pit . . Xew Testa- 

01 the Apostles the existence of the characteristic pecu- meru. 
liarities by which they were themselves marked ; and we 
can now see that their writings still remained in the next 
generation to witness at once to the different forms and 
essential harmony of their teaching. Polycarp, who united 
by his life two great ages of the Church, reconciles in his 
own person the followers of St James and St Paul : he was 
the friend of Papias as well as the teacher of Irenaeus. 

1 Iren. iv. 27(45) ; Fr.v. (Routh). ...sed ipsi timere...et ideo Paulum 

The oblique construction of the whole dixisse: Si enim naturalibus famis, 

paragraph proves that Irenaeus is &c. (Rom. xi. 20, 21). 
giving accurately at least the general 2 Iren. iv. 31 (49); Fr. vi. (Routh). 

tenor of the Elder's statement ; and The reference to St Matthew (xi. 19) 

the quotations form a necessary part is remarkable from being introduced 

of it, and cannot have been added by 'Inquit;' that to St John (viii. 

for illustration. E. g. Non debemus 56) is more uncertain. See also 

ergo, inquit ille Senior, superbi esse p. 61, n. 2. 



70 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [past 

chap. II. 

§ 3. The Evangelists in the reign of Trajan. 

The change in Hitherto Christianity has been viewed in its inward 
Tight. 01 ' construction : now it will be regarded in its outward con- 
flicts. It is no longer ' a work for silence, but for might/ 
Truth was not only to be strengthened, consolidated, deve- 
loped to its full proportions : it was charged to conquer 
the world. The preparation for the accomplishment of this 
charge was the work of the Apologists. 
The early Before we consider their writings it is very worthy of 

miTtohave notice that Eusebius introduces the mention of New Tes- 
written ho- tament Scriptures into the striking description which he 
gives of the zeal of the first Christian missionaries. ' They 
II7 ' ' discharged the work of Evangelists,' he says, speaking of 
the time of Trajan, 'zealously striving to preach Christ to 
■ those who were still wholly ignorant of Christianity (6 rrjs 
f 7r/crTe&)? X0709), and to deliver to them the Scripture of 
'the divine Gospels' {rrjv rcov Oeicov evayyeXtcov irapaSiBovat 
jpacftrjv 1 ). The statement may not be in itself convincing 
as an argument; but it falls in with other traditions which 
affirm that the preaching of Christianity was even in the 
earliest times accompanied by the circulation of written 
Gospels; for these were at once the sum of the Apostolic 
message — the oral Gospel — and its representative 2 . Thus 
in the other glimpse which Eusebius gives of the labours 
of Evangelists — ' men inspired with godly zeal to copy the 
' pattern of the Apostles' — the written Word again appears. 
Thus Pantcc- Pantsenus towards the end of the second century penetrated 

nus found the .. . * /» 

Gospel 0/ st even to the Indians ; and there it is said that he found 

Matthew -» «- i 

amongsomsof that the Gospel according to Matthew had anticipated 

1 Euseb. H. E. in. 37. traditions of the origin of the Gospels 

2 Euseb. H.E.111. 24: Mardaios of St Mark and St Luke point to 
...'E/3/>cucns K7)p6%as . . .rb \elirov rrj the same fact. See Introduction to 
auTou irapovcla tovtols a<f> uv eariX- the Study of the Gospels, pp. 167 ff. 
Xero 5td rrjs ypcKprjs aireirXrjpov. The 



I.] The Athenian Apologists. 71 

' his arrival among some there who were acquainted with chap. ii. 
' Christ, to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, had ^ejndiany, 
* preached, and given on his departure (AroraXeJN/rcu) the 
'writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters 1 .'... The whole 
picture may not be original ; but the several parts harmo- 
nize exactly together, and .the general effect is that of 
reality and truth. 

§ 4. The Athenian Apologists. 
At the very time when the first Evangelists were ex- Tiie place and 

J . ♦. . . occasion of the 

tending the knowledge of Christianity, the earliest Apo- £*& Apology. 
logists w r ere busy in confirming its authority 2 . While 
Asia and Rome had each their proper task to do in the 
building of the Church, it was reserved for the country- 
men of Socrates to undertake in the first instance the 
formal defence of its claims before the rulers of the Y\ T oiid. 
The occasion of this new work arose out of the celebration 
of the Eleusinian mysteries — those immemorial rites which 
seem to have contained all that was deepest and truest in 
the old religion. During his first stay at Athens, Hadrian a.d. 123— 126. 
suffered himself to be initiated; and probably because the 
Emperor was thus pledged to the support of the national 
faith, the enemies of the Christians set on foot a persecu- 
tion against them. On this, or perhaps rather on his 
second visit to the city, Quadratus, 'a disciple of the Apo- c . a.d. 130. 
sties 3 ,' offered to him his Apology, which is said to have 

1 Euseb. H. E. v. 10. Cf. Heini- identical with the Bishop of the same 
chen, inloc. and Add. Panta?nus was name, who is said to have 'brought 
at the head of the Catechetical School ' the Christians of Athens again to- 
of Alexandria in the time of Com- 'gether who had been scattered by- 
modus (Euseb. H. E. v. 9, 10); and 'persecution, and to have rekindled 
his journey to India probably pre- 'their faith' (Euseb. //. E. iv. 23). 
ceded his appointment to that office. The narrative of Eusebius leaves the 

2 Euseb. H. E. in. 37. matter in uncertainty. (Cf. II. E. 

3 Hieron. de Virr. III. 19. It is ni. 37 ; iv. 3, with iv. 23.) Jerome 
disputed whether the Apologist was identifies them (l. c. ; Ep. ad Magn. 



72 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. n. procured the well-known rescript to Minucius in favour of 
the Christians 1 . 
The character This Apology of Quadratus was generally current in 
ofQwdratus. the time of Eusebius, who himself possessed a copy of it; 
' and one may see in it/ he says, ' clear proofs both of the 
' intellect of the man and of his apostolic orthodoxy 2 / The 
single passage which he has preserved shews that Quad- 
ratus insisted rightly on the historic worth of Christianity. 
' The works of our Saviour/ he argues, 'were ever present; 
' for they were real: being the men who were healed: the 
'men who were raised from the dead: who were not only 
' seen at the moment when the miracles were wrought, but 
' also [were seen continually like other men] being ever 
'present; and that not only while the Saviour sojourned on 
' earth, but also after his departure for a considerable time, 
'so that some of them survived even to our times 3 .' 
TheApoiow A second 'Apology for the Faith,' — 'a rationale of 

of Arisiiden. . . . 

Christian doctrine — was addressed to Hadrian by Aris- 
ticles, ' a man of the greatest eloquence/ who likewise was 
an Athenian, and probably wrote on the same occasion as 

LXX. § 4), and Cave supports his 3 The original cannot be quoted 

view (Hid. Litt. I. an. 123). Cf. too often : Tou 5£ HurTjpcs i]p,u)i> ra 

Routh, Jiell. Sacra?, I. 72 sq. tpya del irapTjv dXrjdij yap rjv ol 

1 Of. Routh, I. c. The details of the 6e pair evd iures' ol dpaaravTes e/c ve- 
history are very obscure. If Jerome KpCjv ol ovk uxpd-qaav p.bvov Bepairev- 
(Ep. ad Magn. I.e.) speaks with strict 6p:evoi /ecu avtardpLevoi, dWd teal del 
accuracy when he says Quadratus irdpovres' ovd 1 iirth^pLOvvTos p.6vov rod 
...Adriano principi Eleusince sacra HioTrjpos, ctXAa Kal diraWay ^ros 17- 
invisenti librum pro nostra religione cav iwl XP 0V0V l^av6v y ware Kal eis 
tradidit, the Apology must be placed robs T)pLere'povs XP 0V0VS T ^^ avrQu 
at the time of Hadrian's first visit ; dcp'tKovro (Euseb. If. E. IV. 3). The 
otherwise it seems more likely that it repetition of 6 2wr7?p absolutely is 
should be referred to the second. remarkable; in the New Testament 
Pearson (ap. Routh, p. 78) fixes the and in the Apostolic Fathers it oc- 
date on the authority of Eusebius (?) curs only as a title. The usage of 
at 127. The rescript to Minucius is Quadratus clearly belongs to a later 
found in Just. Ap. I. lxviii. ad f. date. It appears again in the Let- 

2 H. E. iv. 3 : e£ ov [avyypdp.[xa- ter to Diognetus (c. ix.), and very 
ros] KarLoetv iarl XapLirpd TCKurjpia frequently in the fragment on the 
rrjs re rod dvbpbs diavoias Kal ttjs Resurrection appended to Justin's 
diroo-To\LKTJs 6p6oTop.ias. works (cc. ii., iv., v., <fct\). 



I.] The Athenian Apologists. /3 

Quadratus 1 . Eusebius and Jerome speak of the book as chap.il 

still current in their time, but they do not appear to have 

read it. Jerome however adds that 'in the opinion of 

' scholars it was a proof of the writers ability ;' and this 

falls in with what he elsewhere says of its character, that 

it was constructed out of philosophic elements 2 . Aristides 

in fact, like Justin, was a philosopher; and did not lay 

aside his former dress when he became a Christian 3 . 

Nothing, it wall be seen, can be drawn directly from Both witness to 

n . r* i s^i i j_i the Catholic 

these scanty notices m support ot the Canon; but the doctrine. 
position of the men gives importance even to the most 
general views of their doctrine. They represent the 
teaching of Gentile 4 Christendom in their generation, and 
witness to its soundness. Quadratus is said to have been 
eminently conspicuous for the gift of prophecy 5 ; and yet 
he appealed with marked emphasis, not to any subjective 
evidence, but to the realitv of Christ's works. Aristides 
investigated Christianity in the spirit of a philosopher ; 
and yet he was as conspicuous for faith as for wisdom 6 . 
Their works were not only able, but in the opinion of 
competent judges they were orthodox. 

1 Hieron. de Yirr. III. 19: Yolu- not tell 011 what authority. Pro- 
men nostri dogmatis rationem conti- bably the names were interchanged, 
nens. Fragm. Martyrol., ap.Koutb, 4 Yet Grabe's conjecture that the 
p. 76 : Aristides philosophus, vir rule attributed to Quadratus in a 
eloquentissimus...If there were suf- Martyrology, ut nulla esca a Chris- 
ficient reason for the supposition that tianis repudiaretur qua? rationalis et 
Quadratus himself suffered martyr- humana est, was assigned to him 
dom in the time of Hadrian, the by error, seems very plausible. Cf. 
Apology of Aristides might be sup- Routh, I. p. 79. 
posed to have been called forth at 5 Euseb. H.E. in. 37; v. 17. 
that time. 6 Hieron. ad Magn. 1. c. : Fide vir 

* Hieron. 1. c. : Apud philologos sapientiaque admirabilis. Another 

ingenii ejus indicium est. Ep. ad very remarkable testimony to the 

Magn. lxx. § 4: Apologeticum pro character of his- teaching is found in 

Christianis obtulit contextum philo- the Martyrolog. Rom. (ap. Bouth, 

sophorum sententiis, quern imitatus p. 80) : Quod Christus Jesus solus 

postea Justinus, et ipse philosophus. esset Deus praesente ipso Imperatore 

3 Hieron. I.e. Dorner (1. 180) says luculentissime peroravit. 
the same of Quadratus, but I can- 



74 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. 



[part 



The letter to 
Dioynetus. 



CHAP. II. 

§ 5. The Letter to Diognetus. 

In addition to the meagre fragments just reviewed, 
one short work — the so-called Letter to Diognetus — has 
been preserved entire, or nearly so, to witness to the cha- 
racter of the earliest apologetic literature 1 . It differs 
however from the Apologies in this, that it was written in 
the first instance to satisfy an inquirer, not to conciliate 
an enemy. It is anonymous, resembling in form a speech 
much more than a letter, and there are no adequate 
Not written by means of determining its authorship. For a long time it 
w T as attributed to Justin Martyr ; but it is equally alien in 
thought and style from his acknowledged writings ; and 
the mainstay of such a hypothesis seems to be the pardon- 
able desire not to leave a gem so precious without an 
owner 2 . Other names have been suggested; but in the 
absence of external evidence they serve only to express 
the character of the Essay. It is eloquent, but that is no 
sure sign that it was written by Apollos. It is opposed to 
Judaism, but that is no proof that it proceeded from Marcion 3 . 



1 Like the Epistles of Clement it 
is at present found only in one an- 
cient MS. Cf. Otto, Just. Mart. II., 
Proleg. xiv. xx. sqq. Stephens may 
have had access to another. 

2 The evidence on which we con- 
clude that it cannot be Justin's is 
briefly this : (1) It is contained in no 
catalogue of his writings. (2) Jus- 
tin's style is cumbrous, involved, 
and careless ; while that of the Let- 
ter to Diognetus is simple, vigorous, 
and classical. (3) Justin regards 
idolatry, Judaism, even Christianity 
itself, from a different point of view. 
Idols, according to him, were really 
tenanted by spiritual powers (Apol. 
I. xiL), and were not mere stocks or 
f tones (ad Diogn. ii.) : the Mosaic 
Law was a fitting preparation for 



the Gospel (Dial. c. 2V. xliii.), and 
not an arbitrary system {ad Diogn. 
iv.): Christianity was the completion 
of that which was begun in men's 
hearts by the seminal word (Ap. II. 
xiii.), so that they were not even in 
appearance left uncared for by God 
before Christ came (ad Diogn. viii). 
The second ground is in itself de- 
cisive ; the doctrinal differences can 
be more or less smoothed down by 
the comparison of other passages of 
Justin: e.g. Ap. I. ix.; Dial. c. Tr. 
xlvi. ad Jin. 

3 Lumper (ap. Mohler, 165) and 
Gallandi (ap. Hefele, lxxix.) suggest 
Apollos. Bunsen in his Analecta 
Ante-Nicmia, I. 103 ff. publishes the 
first part as ' the lost early letter of 
Marcion,' but brings forward no 



I.] The Letter to Diognetus. 75 

It may be the work of Quadratus 1 or Aristides; but it is chap. ii. 
enough that we can regard it as the natural outpouring of purely Greek ' 
a Greek heart holding converse with a Greek mind in the 
language of old philosophers. 

The question of the authorship of the Letter heino; The Letter 

1 . . consists oj tico 

thus left in uncertainty, that of its integrity still remains. z> arts - 
As it stands at present it consists of two parts (cc. i. — x. ; 
xi., xii.) connected by no close coherence ; and at the end 
of the first the manuscript marks the occurrence of a 
'chasm 2 .' The separation thus pointed out is fully esta- 
blished by internal evidence. The first part — the true ^^f arac ' 
Letter to Diognetus — is everywhere marked by the cha- 
racteristics of Greece; the second by those of Alexandria, 
The one, so to speak, sets forth truth i rationally/ and the 
other e mystically/ The centre of the one is faith : of the 
other knowledge. The different manner in which they 
treat the ancient Covenant illustrates their mutual relation. 
The Mosaic institutions — sabbaths and circumcision and 
fasts — are at once set aside in the Letter to Diognetus as 
palpably ridiculous and worthless. In the concluding frag- 
ment, on the contrary, ' the fear of the Law and the grace 
* of the Prophets' are united with 'the faith of the Gospels 
' and the tradition of the Apostles' as contributing to the 
wealth of the Church 3 . 

satisfactory arguments in support of most real differences. In addition 

his opinion. to this the argument is completed at 

1 Cf. Dorner, I. 178 anm. the end of c. x. according to the 

2 Cf.Otto, 11. p. 201, n. The words plan laid down in c. i. ; and the close 
are: koX code iyKoirrjv eTx € T0 o\vtL- of c. xi. seems to imply a different 
ypa<pov. motive for writing. On the other 

3 It is always impossible to convey hand it is quite wrong to insist on 
by words any notion of the varia- the fact that 'the second fragment 
tions in tone and language and addresses not one but many, 1 for the 
manner which are instinctively felt singular is used.as often as the plural - 
in comparing two cognate but sepa- (c. xi. : rjv x^P LV V-V \v7ro3vJir lyvuxry. 
ratebooks; and yet the distinction c. xii. : rjrw col Kapdia yvucis). 
between the two parts of the ' Letter There may have been a formal con- 
to Diognetus' seems to me to be elusion after c. x., but even now the 
shewn clearly by these subtle, but termination is not more abrupt than 



76 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. 



[PAET 



chap. ii. Indications of the date of the writings are not wholly 

The date of the wanting. The address to Diognetus was composed after 
netus. the faith of Christians had been tried by wide-spread perse- 

cution, which had not even at that time passed over 1 ; and 
on the other hand a lively faith in Christ's speedy Presence 
(irapovcria) still lingered in the Church 2 . The first condition 
c. 117 ad. can hardly be satisfied before the reign of Trajan; and the 
second forbids us to bring the letter down to a much later 
time. In full accordance with this Christianity is spoken 
of as some thing 'recent;' Christians are a f new class;' 
the Saviour has been only 'now' set forth 3 . 

The concluding fragment is more recent, but still, I 

believe, not later than the first half of the second century. 

The date of the The greater maturity of style and the definite reference 

fragment to St Paul can be explained by the well-known activity of 

later. religious thought and the early advancement of Christian 

literature at Alexandria 4 . And everything else in the 



that to Justin's first Apology, and it 
expresses the same motive— a regard 
to future judgment (c. x. ad Jin.); 
Just. A p. 1. lxviii. In c. vii. there 
is a lacuna. Cf. next note. 

1 c. vii. : [ovx bptis] irapa(3a\\o/jL£- 
vovs dypiois... It is impossible to 
read the words without thinking of 
"the martyrdom of Ignatius, which 
indeed may have suggested them. 

Just before 7rapa(3a\\ofx^vovs there 
is a lacuna ; ovx <W S * s introduced 
from the next sentence. The MS. 
has the note : ovtus kcli ev r$ clvtl- 
ypd<pco evpov eyKoirr\v iraXaiOT&rov 
8vtos (Otto, II. p. 184, n.). It is quite 
unnecessary to alter the last words as 
Otto wishes. Cf. Jelf, Gr. Gr. §7100. 

2 c. vii. : TavTa rijs irapovalas av- 
tov deiy/jLara. The word, which is 
almost universally spread through 
the writings of the N. T., does not 
occur in this sense in the Apostolic 
Fathers. Justin speaks of the se- 
cond Trapovcria without alluding to 



its approach : Dial. c. Tr. cc. xxxi. , 
xxxii. 

3 cc. i., ii., ix. This argument is of 
weight when connected with the 
others, though not so independently. 
Our view of the date of the Letter is 
not inconsistent with the belief that 
it was addressed to Diognetus the 
tutor of Marcus Aurelius. That 
prince openly adopted the dress and 
doctrines of the Stoics when twelve 
years old (133 a. d.) ; and if we place 
the Epistle at the close of the reign 
of Trajan (c. 117 A. D.) there is no 
difficulty in reconciling the dates. 

4 c. xii. : 6 airtxjToXos. The an- 
tagonism between the Serpent (rjdo- 
V7j) and Eve (a'co-Orjcris) was com- 
mented on by Philo, Leg. Alleg. it. 
§§ l8sqq. Tty 6<pLo,adxou otf> yvw- 
fxrjv avrlraTTe Kal k&Wigtov dyCova 

TOVTOV diad\71G0V...KaTCL TTJS TOUS &\- 

Xous airavTas piKibo~7]S i}5oi>r}S...(§ 26) 
Cf. Just. M. Dial, c, and Otto in 
loc. 



I.] The Letter to Diognetus. 77 

writing betokens an early date. The author speaks of chap. ii. 
himself as f a disciple of Apostles and a teacher of Gen- 
tiles 1 .' The Church, as he describes it, was still in its 
first stage 2 . The sense of personal intercourse with the 
Word was fresh and deep. Revelation was not then wholly 
a thing of the Past 3 . 

In one respect the two parts of the book are united, in- Both parts 

_ shew a comb'- 

asmuch as thev both exhibit a combination of the teaching nation of the 

„ ~ . . .,., doctrine of >t 

of St Paul and St John. The love of God, it is said in the Paul and of 

St John. 

Letter to Diognetus, is the source of love in the Christian; 
who must needs 'love God who thus first loved him' (jrpo- 
aya7r?]crav7a), and rind an expression for this love by lov- 
ing his neighbour, whereby he will be ' an imitator of God.' 
' For God loved men, for whose sakes He made the world, 
'to whom He subjected all things that are in the earth,... 
'unto whom (77/509) He sent His only-begotten Son, to 
k whom He promised the kingdom in heaven (rrjv iv oipavcp 
' fiaatXelav), and will give it to those who love Him:' 
God's will is mercy ; ' He sent His Son as wishing to save 
'(©s cra£W)...and not to condemn;' and as witnesses of 
this ' Christians dwell in the world, though they are not of 
' the world 4 .' So in the Conclusion we read that ' the Word 
4 Who was from the beginning.. ..at His appearance, speak- 

1 c. xi. hut. Bingham, Orig. Eccles. ii. 461 sq. 

2 c. xii. ad Jin. ...cruTrjpLov deiKPU- The phrase Trapddocns clttoo-toXuv <pv- 
tcll Kal aTToo-roXoL G-vverifovTaL, Kal to XdcraeraL (c. xi.) is of no weight on 
Kvplou Trdcrx a ^po€px €Ta h KCLL xXrjpoi the other side. Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 15; 
avvdyovraL, Kal uerd Koo-fiov apuo.fe- iii. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 2. 

rat, Kal diddcrKwv wylaus 6 Aoyos eu- 3 The phrase already quoted (last 

tipaiverai, bC ov liarrip do^d^erat. I note), 'theLord's passover advances, 1 

have adopted the admirable emenda- seems to point to the early Paschal 

tion kXtjool (i Pet. v. 3) for Krjpoi, controversy. If a special date must 

printed by Bunseu {Hipp. I. p. 192), be fixed, I should be inclined to Btig- 

though in p. 188 he seems to read gest some time between 140 — 150. 
KaipoL. It does not appear on what 4 c.x., vii., vi. Cf. 1 Johniv. 19, 11 ; 

authority Otto says Designantnr Eph. v. 1 ; John iii. 17; [James 

cerei quibus Christian! potissimum i. 12 :] John xvii. 1 r, 16. I cannot 

tempore paschali utebantur; if it call to mind a parallel to the phrase 

were so, K-npoi uvvdyovrai would still ?; kv oupavio paatXeia. 
be a marvellous expression. Cf. 



78 The Age of the Greek Apologists, [part 

chap. ii. ' ing boldly, manifested the mysteries of the Father to 
' those who were judged faithful by Him/ And those again 
to whom the Word speaks ' from love of that which is re- 
pealed to them' share their knowledge with others. And 
this is the true knowledge which is inseparable from life ; 
and not that false knowledge of which the Apostle says, 
knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth 1 . 
How far the The presence of the teaching of St John is here placed 

Synoptic Gos- . 

pds are recog- beyond all doubt. There are however no direct references 

nized in the 

Letter to Diog- to the Gospels throughout the Letter, nor indeed any 
allusions to our Lord's discourses ; and with regard to the 
Synoptic Evangelists, it is more difficult to trace the marks 
of their use. From time to time the writer to Diognetus 
appears to shew familiarity with their language ; but this 
is all 2 . 

other refer- The influence of the other parts of the New Testament 

ences to the . _.„ , ~ 

New Testa- on the Letter is clearer. In the first part the presence 01 

r tnent in the r a -r l 

Letter to Diog- St Paul is even more discernible than that of bt John. 
In addition to Pauline words and phrases 3 , whole sections 
are constructed with manifest regard to passages in the 
Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians ; and 
there are other coincidences of language more or less 
evident with the Acts, and with the Epistles to the Ephe- 
sians, Philippians, the First Epistle to Timothy, and the 

1 cc. xi., xii. Cf. John i. i, 18; (Ep. to Hebr.) — fiifx-qr^s Qeov — Kara 
i Cor. viii. I. The exact phrase capita $rjv — Kaivbs tivOpwiros. 
Trapp^aXaXeT^ is peculiar to St John Among the Pauline words are: 
among the New Testament writers irapeopeveiv (i Cor. ix. 13)— 0eo0-<?- 
with the exception of Mark viii. 32. /3eia — deiffidatfiovta — x o PV7 € ^-^^ vv ' 
'E£ dydTrrjs tQv diroKa\v(pd^vTOJV is a rjdeia — irpocrdedfxeuos — Trapairovfxai-- 
very note- worthy expression. 7roXiretfoyUcu — d<p6apata — €K\oyr) — 6- 

2 Compare Matt. vi. '25 — 31 ; xix. fioKoyovpLivuis—virbaTao-LS (Hebr.) 
17, with cc. ix., viii. ; and also Matt. The peculiarities in the language 
v. 44 ; xix. 26, with cc. vi., ix. of the Letter may be judged from 

3 The following phrases may be no- these examples : VTrepo-irovddfctv — 
ticed : dirodix ^ Tivd twos (Acts) — irpOKartxw — i^ofioiovcrdai — iysara- 
to dhvvarov 777s rifMeripas (ptio-eios — rb GT-npl&iv — dwepivdrjTOS — travTOKTi- 
ttjs deoaefteias ixvar-qpiov — oUovoixlav o-ttjs — yepaipew — \j/o<po5€T)S — fivr^L- 
Tno~T€ij€<T 6 at — TexviTrjs kolI drjpuovpyds KaKtiv. 



netus : and 






I.] The Letter to Diognetus. 79 

Epistle to Titus, and with the First Epistle of Peter 1 . In the chap. ii. 
concluding fragment there is, in addition to the references in the concluding 
to St John, to the Gospels generally, and to the Epistle to 
the Corinthians already mentioned, an apparent remi- 
niscence of a passage in the First Epistle to Timothy 2 . 

The conclusion of the letter moreover has a further The ■ Gnostic* 
importance as marking the presence of a new element in nSlnm 9 ' 
the development of Christian philosophy. Knowledge fragment, 
(yvobcns;) is vindicated from its connection with heresy, and 
welcomed as the highest expression of revealed truth. 
Believers are God's Paradise, bringing forth manifold fruits ; 
and in them, as in Paradise of old, the tree of Knowledge 
is planted hard by the tree of Life ; for it is not know- 
ledge that killeth, but disobedience. Life cannot exist 
without knowledge ; nor sure knowledge without true 
Life. Knowledge without the witness of Life is only the 
old deception of the serpent. The Christian's heart must 
be knowledge; and his Life must be true Reason. In 
other words, Christian wisdom must be the spring of ac- 
tion, and Christian life the realization of truth 3 . The 
groundwork of this teaching lies in the relation of the 
Word to man. The Incarnation of the Eternal Word is 
connected intimately with His Birth from time to time in 
the heart of believers 4 . The same Word which manifested 
the mysteries of the Father when He was shewn to the 
world is declared still to converse with whom He will 5 . 
The Word is still the teacher of the saints 6 . 

1 Compare c. ix. with Rom. iii. 4 c. xi. : Ovtos 6 air* apxys, o 
21 — 26, and Gal. iv. 4; and c. v. kvlivos (pavels kclI [7raXcucs] eupedels 
with 2 Cor. vi. 9, 10. The following /ecu irdvroTe vtos h ayiuv icapdLcus 
references also are worthy of re- yewLbfievos. 

mark: c. iii., Acts xvii. 24, 25: 5 c^ xi. : ...iKiyv<Jbo~r) a A670S 6/zt- 

c. ii., Eph. iv. 21-24: c. v., Phil. Xe? 5t' Ccv fiotiXerai 6Ve cVXet. 
iii. 18 sqq. : c. iv., 1 Tim. iii. 16: 6 c. xii. : di8do~KWP ay Lovs 6 A6yc$ 

c. ix., Tit. iii. 4, and 1 Pet. iii. 18. evcppaberai. 

2 Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16 with c. xi. It is to be remarked that the Word 

3 c. xii. appears in both parts of the Letter 



80 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. 



[part 



chap. II. 

How cor- 
rected. 



In this doctrine it is possible to trace the germs of 
later mysticism, but each false deduction is excluded by 
the plain recognition of the correlative objective truth. 
The test of knowledge is the presence of Life 1 ; and the 
influence of the Word on the Christian is made to flow 
from His historical revelation to mankind 2 . 



The Letter to 
Diognetus a 
transition to 
the Judceo- 
Ckristian 
writings. 



The Dialogue 
of Jason and 
Papiscus. 



§ 6. The Jewish Apologists. 

The conclusion of the Letter to Diognetus offers a na- 
tural transition to the few relics of Apologetic writings 
derived apparently from Jewish authorship. It bears, as 
has been said, the impress of Alexandria, and was pro- 
bably the work of a Jewish convert 3 . Coming from such 
a source it may be taken to shew the Catholic spirit of one 
division of Jewish Christendom ; but since it may seem 
that the freedom of thought which distinguished Alexan- 
dria was unlikely to foster Judaizing views, it becomes a 
matter of importance to inquire whether there be any 
early records of the Palestinian Church, their acknowledged 
source and centre. A notice of one such book, — the 'Dia- 
logue between Jason and Papiscus,' has been preserved 4 . 
It appears to have had a wide popularity, and was trans- 
lated into Latin in the third century 5 . Celsus, it is true, 



rather as the correlative to Reason 
in man (far) 5e \6yos aXydrjs, c. xii. 
6 Qebs...T7]i> dXrjdetav /cat rbv Aoyov 
rbv ayicv /cat airepLvor^rov dvdpdnrots 
ei>Lbpvo~e...c. vii.), than as the expres- 
sion of the creative Will of God. 
Cf. Dorner, I. p. 41 1. 

1 '0 yap vo/mifav eldevai ri dvev 
yvdbaews aXyOovs /cat pLapTupov/j.€i>r)s 
vtto tt)s far)s ovk $yvo}...c. xii. 

2 ~Evayye\lojv irians idpvrai.. .c. xi. 

3 This follows, I think, from the 
manner in which the Book of Gene- 
sis is allegorized. In later writers 
such interpretations became general- 



ly current. The contrast which the 
fragment offers to the Epistle of 
Barnabas is very instructive, as 
shewing the opposite extremes de- 
ducible from the same principles. 

4 Routh, I. 95 — 109. 

5 This is the date given by Cave. 
Others have placed it as late as the 
end of the fifth century. The trans- 
lation was made by Celsus, and dedi- 
cated to Bishop Vigilius ; but nothing 
can be determined as to their iden- 
tity. The preface to the translation 
is appended to many editions of Cy- 
prian. Cf. Routh, p. 109. 



I.] The Jewish Apologists. 81 

thought that it was fitter for pity tlian for ridicule ; but chap. ii. 
Origen speaks highly of its dramatic skill 1 . It is uncer- 
tain whether it has been attributed rightly to Aristo of 
Pella; for tbat late belief may have arisen from its known 
connexion with the Church to which he belonged 2 . The 
general plan of the writer however is exactly character- 
istic of the position which a teacher at Pella may be sup- 
posed to have occupied.- It was his object to represent a iu character. 
Hebrew Christian convincing an Alexandrine Jew 'from the 
' Old Testament Scriptures (i/c tgov 'lovhal/ccov ypacjxuv), 
1 shewing that the Messianic prophecies were applicable to 
' Jesus 3 .' To this end he apparently made frequent use of 
allegorical interpretations of Scripture; but it is more 
important to notice that he speaks of Jesus as the Son of 
God the Creator of the World 4 . The words, though few, 
are key-words of Christianity, and as the single expression 
of the early doctrine of the Church of Palestine they go 
far to expose the unreality of the hypothesis which exhibits 
it as Ebionitic. They do not prove anything as to the 
existence of a New Testament Canon ; but as far as they 

1 Orig. c. Cels.ix. 52: HairicKov taken from the Dialogue. Maxinms 
twos /cat 'Idcovos avrCkoyiav Zyvuv (7th cent.) is the earliest writer who 
(in the words of Celsus) oi> ytXuros attributes the Dialogue to Aristo, 
dXXa fxaXXop iXeovs kol /Serous a£lav. adding: rjv [didXe^iv] KXtjjlltjs 6'AXe- 
The book, as Origen allows, was more ^avdpetis kv e/cry j3l$Xlcp twv 'Yttotv- 
adapted in some parts for the simpler Truaeuv top ay lov Aovkclv (prjaly dva- 
sort of men than for the educated : ypdxpai. This tradition is probably 
duvdfjLeuov /nev ti irpbs rcrus iroXXotis due to the identification of Jason 
Kit airXovo-repovs iriarecos x^P LV <TV t x ~ with the Jason mentioned in Acts 
ftaXtadai, ov p.r\v olbv re Kal (rwerw.- xvii. 5. 

repovs Kivrjaai{l c). Afterwards he Of the Apology which Aristo is 

adds: Kalroiye ovk ayevvQs ovd' dirpe- said to have offered to Hadrian 

irCos t<$ 'IouSaiVctp TrpocuTrcp rod ertpov (Citron. Pasc. 4 77, ap. Routh, p. 104, 

iara/jLeuov irpbs rbv \6yov. if the reading be correct) nothing is 

2 Origen and Jerome quote the known. 

Dialogue without mentioning the 3 Pref. Cels. ap. Routh, p. 97 : 

author's name; and it is not given Orig. I.e. 

in the Preface of Celsus. Eusebius 4 Orig. 1. c. : Cels. Pref. 1. c. : 

{H. E. iv. 6) quotes a passage from Hieron. Quczst. Hebr. 11. 507 (ap. 

Aristo in reference to the Jewish Routh, p. 95}. In the last instance he 

rising under Bar-Cochba, but it seems reads in Gen. i. 1, In filio fecit Deus 

at least doubtful whether this was ccelum et terram. Cf. Routh, p. 100. 

C. G 



82 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. II. 



The writings 
of Agrippa 
Cantor 



have any meaning they tend to shew that no such divi- 
sions had place in the Church as have been supposed to 
render the existence of a Catholic Canon impossible 1 . 

Agrippa Castor introduces a new form of the Apology. 
Hitherto we have noticed in succession defences of Chris- 
tianity addressed to persecutors, philosophers, and Jews; 
he maintained the truth against heretics. Nothing appears 
to be known of his history. He is said to have been a 
'very learned man/ and was probably of Jewish descent 2 . 
Eusebius speaks of him as a contemporary of Saturninus 
and Basilides, and adds that he was the most famous 
among the many writers of the time 'who defended the 
* doctrine of the Apostles and the Church chiefly on philo- 
' sophic principles' (XoyiKcorepovy. In particular, he com- 
posed ' a most satisfactory (iKavcoraros;) refutation of Ba- 
silides/ in which he noticed his commentaries on the 
Gospel, and exposed the claims of certain supposititious 
{avvirapKTOL) prophets, whom he had used to support his 
shew signs 0/ doctrines. This slight fact shews that historical criticism 
criticism. was not wholly wanting in the Church when first it was 
required. It would not, as far as we can see, have been 
an easy matter to secure a reception for forgeries claiming 
to be authoritative, even at the beginning of the second 
. century. 



1 The Dialogue was in circulation 
in the time of Celsus, and conse- 
quently the date of its composition 
cannot be placed long after the death 
of Hadrian. 

It may be concluded from Origen's 
notice (I. c.) that the doctrine of the 
Resurrection of the body suggested 
some of Celsus' objections, probably 
in connexion with the Second Ad- 
vent. The reference to l a strange 
and memorable narrative' contained 
in one of the Christian books pro- 
bably refers to the Dialogue (com- 



pare c. 53, p. 200 init. with c. 52 
init.). 

2 Yir valde doctus. Hieron. de 
Virr. III. si. His Jewish descent 
appears to follow from the fact that 
he charged Basilides with teaching 
'indifference in eating meats offered 
'to idols' (Euseb. H.E. IV. 7); yet 
see Just. M. Dial. c. 35. His con- 
troversy with Basilides probably in- 
dicates some connexion with Alex- 
andria. 

3 Euseb. I. c. 



I.] The Age of the Greek Apologists. S3 

CHAP. II 

§ 7. Justin Martyr. 
The writings and character of Justin Martyr stand Thecompa- 

J rative fulness 

out in clear relief from the fragments and names which ^^ r i now ' 
we have hitherto reviewed. Instead of interpreting iso- Justin. 
lated phrases we can now examine complete and con- 
tinuous works: instead of painfully collecting a few. dry 
details from tradition we can contemplate the image 
w T hich a Christian himself has drawn of his own life and 
experience. Justin was of Greek descent, but his family 
had been settled for two generations in the Roman colony 
of Flavia Neapolis, which was founded in the time of 
Vespasian near the site of the ancient Sichem 1 . The date 
of his birth is uncertain, but it was probably at the close 
of the first century. He tells us that his countrymen 
generally were addicted to the errors of Simon Magus 2 , 
but it appears that he himself escaped that delusion, and 
began his search for truth among the teachers of the old 

philosophic schools. First he applied to a Stoic 3 ; but Bis own ac- 
count 0/ his 
after some time he found that he learned nothing of God philosophic 

° studies. 

from him, and his master affirmed that such knowledge 
was unnecessary. Next he betook himself to a Peripatetic, 
1 a shrewd man/ he adds, ' in his own opinion/ But before 
many days were over, the Philosopher was anxious to 
settle with his pupil the price of his lessons, that their 
intercourse might prove profitable to them both. So 
Justin thought that he was no philosopher at all; and 
still yearning (rrjs ^1^*79 ere crTrapyooar]^) for knowledge 
he applied to a Pythagorean, who enjoyed a great reputa- 

1 Ap. I. 1. an instructive fact that Sadducaeisra 

2 Ap. I. 26; "Zx^bv irdvres fih also prevailed in Samaria. [Hipp.] 
2a/A<x/}e?s oXryoi 5£ /cat £v &\\ots Adv. Hcer. IX. 29. 

Zdveaw Cos top wp&Tov Oebu eKtivov 3 The following account is given 

(Simon) 6fio\oy ovptcs [eKeivov] koX chiefly in a translation from his own 
Trpoo-Kvvovai.. Cf. Dial. c. 120. It is striking narrative. Dial. c. 2 sqq. 

G2 



84 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. II. 



Christianity 
the true phi- 
losophy. 



The wide ex- 
tent of Jus- 
tin's labours. 



tion and prided himself on his wisdom. But a knowledge 
of Music Astronomy and Geometry was the necessary 
passport to his lectures ; and since he was not possessed 
of it, Justin, as he seemed near to the fulfilment of his 
hopes, was once again doomed to disappointment. He 
fared better however with a Platonist, his next teacher, 
and in his company he seemed to grow wiser every day. 
It was at that time — when ' in his folly/ as he says, ' he 
' hoped soon to attain to a clear vision of God' — that, seek- 
ing calm and retirement by the sea-shore, he met an aged 
man, meek and venerable, who led him at length from 
Plato to the Prophets, from metaphysics to faith. ' Pray 
' before all things/ were the last words of this new mas- 
ter, 'that the gates of light be opened to you; for [the 
' truths of revelation] are not comprehensible by the eye 
' or mind of man, unless God and his Christ give him 
' understanding 1 / 

' Immediately a fire was kindled in my soul/ Justin 
adds, 'and I was possessed with a love for the prophets 
'and those men who are Christ's friends 2 . And as I dis- 
' cussed his arguments with myself I found Christianity 
'to be the only philosophy that is sure and suited to 
' mans wants (do-(}>aXrj re koX avjjb^opov). Thus then, and 
' for this cause, am I a philosopher.' 

In the strength of his new conviction he travelled far 
and wide to spread the truth which he had found. In the 
public walk (xystus) at Ephesus he held a discussion with 
the Jew Trypho, proving from the Old Testament that 
Jesus was the Christ. At Rome he is said to have estab- 
lished a school where he endeavoured to satisfy the doubts 



1 Dial. c. 7 ad Jin. 

2 This phrase, in connexion with 
the phrase immediately below, j3ov- 
\oi/JL7}j/ b\v... ir di/T as... /J,7j a<plo~TaadaL 
t&v rod XojTTjpos Xdywv, seems to 
point to Christian Scriptures co- 



ordinate with the Old Testament 
The nature of the first interview 
with Trypho precluded any more 
immediate mention of them at the 
time. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 85 

of Greeks. Everywhere he appeared 'as an ambassador chap. ii. 
'of the Divine Word in the guise of a philosopher 1 / 

His active spirit found frequent expression in writing. Hisnume- 

iii c i • ii rous writings. 

Eusebius has given a list of such books oi his as bad 
' come to his own knowledge/ adding that there w r ere 
besides 'very many other w.orks which were widely cir- 
'culated 2 / Of the writings which now bear his name 
two Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho are genuine 
beyond all doubt ; the rest are either undoubtedly spuri- 
ous or reasonably suspected 3 . But those three books are 
invaluable so far as they combine to give a wide view 
of the relation of Christianity, not indeed to the Christian 
Church, but to heathendom and Judaism 4 . 

The evidence of Justin is thus invested with peculiar a general ac- 

. , count of the 

importance ; and the difficulties by which it is perplexed, relation of 

r 3 J x L his books to 

though they have been frequently exaggerated, are pro- the Gospel- 
portionately great. Since a general view of its chief 
features will render our inquiry into its extent and cha- 
racter easier and more intelligible, we may state by 
anticipation that his writings exhibit a mass of references 
to the Gospel-narrative ; that they embrace the chief 
facts of our Lord's life, and many details of His teaching ; 
that they were derived, at least frequently, from written 

1 Euseb. H. E. tv. n. Cf. Dial. since the Gospel- references are chiefly 
c. i. If the Cohortatio ad Grcecos found in the former. 

be Justin's we must add Alexandria 4 The chronology of Justin's life 

to the cities which he visited (c. 13). isinvolvedin considerable perplexity. 

Compare Semisch, Denkicurd. Just. After a complete examination of the 

ss. 1 ff. evidence Mr Hort concludes that 

Credner {Beitrage, I. 99) suggests ' we may without fear of consider- 

Corinth as the place where the Dia- 'able errour set down Justin's First 

logue took place, if it be historical. ' Apology to 145 or better still to 

2 Euseb. H.E. iv. 18. '146, and his death to 148. The 

3 There is I believe a difference of ' Second Apology, if really separate 
style and tone which distinguishes ' from the first, will then fall in 1 46 
the two Apologies and the Dialogue 'or 147, and the Dialogue with Try- 
from all the other works attributed l phon about the same time' (Joui-nai 
to Justin. The question is of little of Class, and Sacr. Philology, ill. 
importance for our present inquiry, 1 39). 



86 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. records, which he affirmed to rest upon Apostolic autho- 
rity, and to be used in the public assemblies of Christians, 
though he does not mention the names of their authors. 
It is to be noticed further that these references generally 
coincide both in facts and words with what has been 
related by the four Evangelists, that they preserve by 
implication peculiarities of each of the Gospels, that 
they nevertheless shew additions to the received narra- 
tive and remarkable variations from its text, which in 
some cases are both repeated by Justin and found also in 
other writings 1 . 
various soiu- Such are the various phenomena which must be ex- 

tions of the * 

^ 0bl th^e/rZi pl a i ne d and harmonized. At first the difficulties of the 
problem were hardly felt, and the testimony of Justin 
was quoted in support of our Gospels without doubt or 
justification. But when the whole question was fairly 
stated there came a reaction, and various new hypotheses 
were proposed as offering a better solution of it than the 
traditional belief. Some fancied that Justin made use of 
one or more of the original sources from which the Canon- 
ical Gospels were derived. Others, with greater precision, 
identified his Memoirs of the Apostles with the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews. Others again suggested that 
he made use of a Harmony or combined narrative con- 
structed out of Catholic materials 2 . Further investigations 
shewed that these notions were untenable, and the old 
opinion had again gained currency, when Credner main- 
tained with great sagacity and research that we must 
look for the peculiarities of his quotations in a Gospel 
according to St Peter, one of the oldest writings of the 

1 Compare Semisch, Derilcwurdig- mar, leave the main results of this 

Jceiten Justin's (Hamburg, 1848) ; chapter quite unchanged.] 
Credner, Beitrage, 1. 92 — 267 (Halle, 2 These various hypotheses are 

iH^2);Schweg\er,D.nachapostolische examined clearly and satisfactorily 

Z eitalter, I. 21 j — 231. [Later Essays by Semisch, ss. 16 — 33. 
by Hilgenfeld, Kitschl, and Volk- 



I] 



Justin Martyr. 



87 



Church, which 'under various forms retained its influence chap. n. 
among Jewish Christians even after the doctrine of St 
Paul had obtained general reception \ 

In one respect all these theories are alike. They pre- ^l r g c r °^ dto 
suppose that Justin's quotations cannot be naturally he ^"un- 
reconciled with a belief in his use of our Gospels 2 . This 
is their common basis ; and instead of examining in detail 
the various schemes which have been built upon it, we 
may inquire whether it be itself sound. 

The first thing that must strike any one who ex- i. Thege- 



1 Beitrdge, I. 266, &c. This Gos- 
pel according to Peter is supposed by 
Credner to have been ' essentially 
' identical with the Diatessaron of 
'Tatian and the Gospel according to 
' the Hebrews' (Gesch. d. N. T. Kanon, 
22^. In the absence of satisfactory 
evidence it is impossible to examine 
seriously what is a mere conjecture. 
The early historic notices of the Gos- 
pel lend no support to the identifi- 
cation, and our knowledge of the 
contents of the Gospel is far too 
meagre to allow of any conclusion 
being drawn from internal evidence, 
especially as all the early Gospels 
were recensions (so to speak) of the 
original oral Gospel of the Apostolic 
age. 

The Gospel according to Peter is 
expressly referred to by Eusebius as 
used at Rhossus in Cilicia in the time 
of Serapion (see below P. 11. c. 2. §5); 
and by Origen, In Matt T. x. 17; 
and again by Eusebius, H. E. ni. 3, 
without any hint of its identity 
with the better known Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews. In the fifth 
century however Theodoret (Ho3ret. 
Fab. 11. 2) speaks of the ' Nazarenes 
'as Jews who hold Christ to be a 
'just man and use the so-called Gos- 
* pel according to Peter' ; but the tes- 
timony is too late, even if it were ex- 
plicit, to establish the supposed iden- 
tity from what is known of the 



Nazarene Gospel. 

The passage of Justin, Dial. c. 106 
(see p. 96, note 3), I believe has 
nothing to do with this Gospel of 
Peter. The fragments of the Gospel 
according to the Hebreius which have 
been preserved offer no remarkable 
parallels with Justin's citations. See 
below. 

2 Credner himself allows that Jus- 
tin was acquainted with the Canoni- 
cal Gospels of St Matthew, St Mark, 
and St Luke, though he used in pre- 
ference (p. 267) the Gospel of St 
Peter. His acquaintance with the 
Gospel of St John he considers more 
doubtful. Credner's words are well 
worthy of notice : • Justin kannte in 
' der That, wie es auch kaum anders 
'denkbarist, unsere Evangelien... 
Nur allein iiber die Bekanntschaft 
' Justin's mit dem Ev. des Johan- 
1 nes lasst sich, ausser der allgemei- 
'nem Analogie, nichts Bestimmtes 
'nachweisen' {Beitrdge, 1.258). It 
was however unlikely that his con- 
clusions should be allowed to remain 
so incomplete. Schwegler for in- 
stance says (1. 232): '...so hat er 
' (Justin) ohne Zweifel die evayyfkia 
1 Kara ^Slardalov, MdpKov, u. s. f., bei 
* denen es iiberdiess eine Frage ist, 
1 ob sie damals schon existirten, nicht 
' gekannt, sondern ausschliesslich das 
'sogenannte Evangelium Petri... 
1 oder das mit demselben identische 



88 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. 



[part 



CHAP. II. 

neral coinci- 
dence of Jus- 
tin's quota- 
tions with, 
our Gospels: 
i. Coinci- 
dence in 
facts. 



(a) His ac- 
count of the 
Infancy/. 



amines a complete collection of the passages in question 
is the general coincidence in range and contents with our 
Gospels. Nothing for instance furnished wider scope for 
Apocryphal narratives than the history of the Infancy of 
our Blessed Lord: nothing on the other hand could be 
more fatal to Ebionism — 4he prevailing heresy of the age, 
as we are told — than the early chapters of St Matthew 
and St Luke. Yet Justin's account of the Infancy is as 
free from legendary admixture as it is full of incidents 
recorded by the Evangelists. He does not appear to have 
known anything more than they knew ; and he tells with- 
out suspicion what they have related. 

He tells us that Christ was descended from Abraham 
through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David 1 — that 
the Angel Gabriel was sent to foretell His Birth to the 
Virgin Mary 2 — that this was a fulfilment of the prophecy 
of Isaiah (vii. 14) —that Joseph was forbidden in a vision 
to put away his espoused wife, when he was so minded 4 — 
that our Saviour's Birth at Bethlehem had been foretold 
by Micah — that His parents went thither from Nazareth 
where they dwelt, in consequence of the enrolment under 
Cyrenius 6 — that as they could not find a lodging in the 
village they lodged in a cave close by it, where Christ was 
born, and laid by Mary in a manger 7 — that while there 



1 Hebraer-evangelium beniitzt. ..' 
• 1 Dial. c. 120. See c. 100, e£ cov 
Kardyet 7} Tslapia to yevos. Cf. c. 43. 
This interpretation of the genealo- 
gies was probably adopted early. 

2 Dial, a. 100; Luke i. 35, 38. 

3 A P- 1. 33; Matt, i. 23. 

4 Dial. c. 78; Matt. i. 18 sqq. 

5 Ap. 1. 34; Dial. c. 78. Matt, 
ii. 5, 6. The quotation (Mic. v. 2) 
in Justin agrees verbally with that 
in St Matthew, with the exception 
that Justin omits rbv "laparfk, 
and differs very widely from the 



LXX. Cf. Credner, Beitrdge, ir. 
148 f. 

6 Ap. I. 34 : €Trl Kvprjviou rod 
vfiertpov ev 'lovoaia irpwrov yevojae- 
vov eirLTpowov. Dial. c. 78. Cf. 
Credner, Beitr. I. 232 f. 

7 Dial.c. >j$:...'EweL5T]'Iu)o~7)<f>ovK 
elx^v ev rrj KibpLy eKelvrj irov nara- 
Xvcrai, ev air-nXaici) tlvl avv- 
.677^5 ttjs KUfJLTjs Kare'Xvae- 
xal rbre avr&v 8vrwv e/ce? ereroKei ?; 
31 a/net rbv Xpiarbv Kal ev <pdrvy 
aurbv erede'iKei, k.t.X. Lukeii. 7 
,~aveKXivev avrbv ev (pdrvy (without 



I.] Justin Martyr. 89 

wise men from* Arabia, guided by a star, worshipped Him, CHAP »• 
and offered Him gold and frankincense and myrrh, and 
by revelation were commanded not to return to Herod 
to whom they had first come ' — that He was called Jesus ' 
as the Saviour of His people 2 — that by the command of 
God His parents fled with Him to Egypt for fear of 
Herod, and remained there till Archelaus succeeded him 3 
— that Herod being deceived by the wise men com- 
manded the children of Bethlehem to be put to death, so 
that the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled who spoke of 
Eachel weeping for her children 4 — that Jesus grew after 
the common manner of men, and' so waited in obscurity 
thirty years more or less, till the coming of John the Bap- 
tist 5 . 

He tells us moreover that this John the son of Eliza- O 3 ) m* ac- 

, t m count of the 

beth came preaching by the Jordan the baptism of re- ^H^™ 0/ 
pentance, wearing a leathern girdle and a raiment q£ Baptist. 
camel's hair, and eating only locusts and wild honey 6 — 
that men supposed that he was the Christ, to whom he 

the article) Sloti ovk r^v vlvtols t ottos peals to the prophecy (Jerern. xxxi. 

kv rip KaraXv/MaTL. The two ac- [xxxviii.] 15) in a different manner. 

counts seem to be simply supple- St Matthew says simply rore eTrX-n- 

mentary. Later Fathers (e.g. Orig. pdo&yj to prjdev but he more definitely 

c. Cels. I. 51) speak of the Cave with- tovto eireTrpocprjTevTo /xeXXeiif yive- 

out any misgiving that they contra- adai. He transforms a typical event 

diet St Luke: Epiphanius actually into a special prediction. IntheGos- 

quotes him for the fact. Thilo has col- pel they are markedly distinguished, 
lected the authorities on the question : The quotation is verbally the same 

Cod. Apocr. I. 381 sqq. in Justin and St Matthew, differing 

1 Dial. c. 78 ; Matt. ii. 11, 12. widely from the LXX. 

2 Ap. I. 33; Matt. i. a 1. 5 Dial. c. 88; Luke ii. 40, iii. 23. 

3 Dial. cc. 78, 103; Matt. ii. 13. The explanation of the wael of St 

4 Dial. c. 78; Matt. ii. 17, 18. Luke is to be noticed. 

There is a natural exaggeration in 6 Dial. c. 8$, cf. cc. 49, 84 ; Matt. 

Justin's language which forma a iii. 1,4; Lukei. 13 ; Johni. lgff. The 

remarkable contrast to St Matthew. phrase 'Icodvpou Kadefafxevov eirl rod 

* Herod ordered,' he says, 'all the 'lopddvov, repeated by Justin (Dial. 

'male children in Bethlehem with- cc. 88, 51), is changed into /ca^efo/.te- 

'out exception (iravras airXQs tovs vov eirl Tbp'lopbdvrjv in c. 49. There 

' 7rcu5as rovs h B?7#\e^u) to be put can be no reason to think with Cred- 

'to death.' Cf. c, 103. So again jier (p. 218) that Justin found the 

it is not unsignifiqant that he ap- words in his Gospel. 



90 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. II. 



[y) His ac- 
count of the 
Passion. 



answered Jam not the Christy but a voice of one crying; 
for He that is mightier than I will soon come (rj^et), 
whose sandals I am not worthy to bear — that when 
Jesus descended into the Jordan to be baptized by him 
a fire was kindled in the river, and when He came up 
out of the water the Holy Spirit as a dove lighted upon 
Him, and a voice came from heaven saying Thou art 
my Son; this day have I begotten Thee 1 — that imme- 
diately after His Baptism the devil came to Jesus and 
tempted Him, bidding Him at last to worship him 2 . He 
further adds that Christ Himself recognized John as the 
Elias who should precede Him, to whom men had done 
whatsoever they listed; and thus he relates how Herod 
put John into prison ; and how the daughter of Herodias 
danced before the king on his birthday and pleased him, 
so that he promised to grant her anything she wished, 
and that she by her mother's desire asked for the head 
of John to be given her on a charger, and that so John 
was put to death 3 . 

Henceforth, after speaking in general terms of the 
miracles of Christ, how He healed all manner of sickness 
and disease 4 , Justin says little of the details of His Life 
till the last great events. Then he narrates Christ's 
triumphal entry into Jerusalem from Bethphage as a ful- 
filment of prophecy 5 , the second cleansing of the Temple 6 , 
the conspiracy against Him 7 , the institution of the Eucha- 



1 Dial. cc. 88, 103. Compare ii. 
2. 7, below, for an explanation of 
the Apocryphal additions to the text 
of the Evangelists. 

2 Dial. cc. 103, 125. The order 
of the Temptations followed by Jus- 
tin is therefore apparently that of 
St Matthew. Semiscb, s. 99 anm. 

3 Dial. c. 49 ; Matt. xvii. 11 — 13. 

4 Ap. 1. 31,48; Dial.c.6g. Matt. 
iv. 23. 



5 Ap. I. 35 ; Dial. c. 53. The ver- 
sion of the prophecy is different in 
the two passages. The first part 
however in both agrees with the 
LXX. and differs from St Matthew ; 
the last words on the contrary agree 
better with St Matthew than with 
the LXX. Cf. Semisch, ss. 117 — 
1 19. 

6 Dial. c. 17. 

7 Dial. c. 104. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 91 

rist for the remembrance of Him 1 , the singing of the chap. ii. 
Psalm afterwards 2 , the Agony at night on the Mount of 
Olives at which three of His disciples were present 3 , 
the prayer 4 , the bloody sweat 5 , the arrest 8 , the flight of 
the Apostles 7 , the silence before Pilate 8 , the remand to 
Herod 9 , the Crucifixion, the division of Christ's raiment 
by lot 10 , the signs and words of mockery of the bystanders 11 , 
the Cry of Sorrow 12 , the Last Words of Resignation 13 , the 
Burial on the evening of the Day of the Passion 14 , the 
Resurrection en Sunday 15 , the Appearance to the Apostles 
and disciples, how Christ opened to them the Scriptures 16 , 
the calumnies of the Jews 17 , the commission to the Apo- 
stles 18 , the Ascension 19 . 

The same particularity, the same intertexture of the General 

1 J character of 

narratives of St Matthew and St Luke — for St Mark has §w* co ""*'- 

dence. 

few peculiar materials to contribute — the same occasional 
introduction of a minute trait or of higher colouring, 
characterize the great mass of Justin's references to the 
Gospel-history. These features are as distinctly marked 
in his account of the Passion as of the Nativity. There 
are some slight differences in detail, which will be noticed 
afterwards, but the broad resemblance remains unchanged. 
The incidents of the Gospel-narrative to which Justin 
refers appear to be exactly such as he might have derived 
from the four Evangelists. 

The greater part however of Justin's references are made 2. Coincidence 
to the teaching of the Saviour, and not to His works. He 

1 Ap. 1. 66. Cf. Dial cc. 41, 70. n Ap. I. 38; Dial. c. ior. 

2 Dial. c. to6. 12 Dial. c. 99. 

3 Dial. c. 99. 4 Ibid. 13 Dial. c. 105 ; Lake xxiii. 46. 

5 Dial. a 103. Cf. Ap. 1. 50; Dial. 14 Dial. a 97. 
c. 53. 15 Ap. 1. 67.' 

6 Dial. c. 103. 16 Dial. cc. 53, 106. Ap. 1. 50. 

7 Dial. c. 53. 17 Dial. c. 108; Matt, xxviii. 13. 

8 Dial. c. 10-2. See ii. 2. 7, below. 

9 Dial, c. 103 ; Luke xxiii. 7. 18 Ap. I. 61. 

10 Dial. c. 97. Cf. Ap. 1. 35. 19 Dial. 132 ; Ap. I. 46. 



92 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



CHAP. II. 

in the quota- 
tions of our 
Lord's teach- 
ing. 



How far Jus- 
tin's quota- 
tions were 
limited by 
his position. 



Relation to 
St John's 
Gospel. 



John v. 47. 



spoke of Christianity as a power mighty in its enduring 
and godlike character. He spoke of Christ as Him of 
whom the prophets witnessed. But miracles — those trans- 
ient signs of a Divine Presence — are almost unnoticed in 
comparison with the words which bear for ever the living 
stamp of their original source. This form of argument 
was in some degree imposed upon him by the position 
which he occupied ; but to such a mind as his it was no 
less congenial than necessary. Whether he addressed 
Heathen or Jews, the fulfilment of prophecy furnished 
him with a striking outward proof of the claims of Chris- 
tianity; and the moral teaching of Christ completed the 
impression by introducing an inward proof. It was enough 
if he could bring men to listen to the teaching of the 
Church. It was not his task to anticipate its office, or to 
do away with the discipline and duties of the catechumen. 
To forget this is to forget the very business of an Apolo- 
gist. And yet the entire consistency of his writings with 
their proposed end has furnished an objection against the 
authenticity of St John s Gospel. For unless we put 
out of sight the purpose for which Justin wrote, can it 
be a matter of wonder that he makes few allusions to 
the 'spiritual Gospel' — that he exhibits few traces of 
those deep and mysterious revelations which our Lord 
vouchsafed under peculiar circumstances, for the convic- 
tion of his enemies, or for the confirmation of believing 
hearts? They were of no weight as evidence, even as 
our Lord himself said; and the time was not yet come 
when Justin could naturally unfold them to his hearers. 
The same cause which retarded the publication of St 
John's Gospel deferred the use of it. It was a spiritual 
supplement to the others — a light from heaven to kindle 
them into life : but it was necessary that the substance 
should exist, before the supplement could be added; it 



i] Justin Martyr. 93 

was necessary that the body should be fully formed, before chap. 11 
the spirit, the highest life, could be infused into it. 

It has been already shewn that the incidents in the [«] coind- 
Life of Christ which Justin mentions strikingly coincide languag*. 
with those narrated in the Gospels; the style and lan- 
guage of the quotations which he makes from Christ's 
teaching agree no less exactly with those of the Evan- 
gelists. He quotes frequently from memory 1 ; he inter- 
weaves the words which we find at present separately 
given by St Matthew, St Mark, and St Luke 2 ; he con- 
denses, combines, transposes, the language of our Lord as 
they have recorded it 3 ; he makes use of phrases charac- 
teristic of different Gospels 4 ; yet, with very few excep- 
tions, he preserves through all these changes the marked 
peculiarities of the Xew Testament phraseology without 
the admixture of any foreign element 5 . 

And more than this: though, he omits the Parables 6 '^ Coinci - 

' dences in 

which are rather lessons of wisdom than laws of autho- *"&*&*»<*. . 
rity, he refers to parts of the whole series of our Lord's 
discourses given in the Synoptic Gospels; and attributes 

1 This follows from the fact that John : e. g. reKva Qeov 

his quotations of the same passage irpoo-Kwovpiev \6yu kclI clXtj- 

differ. Compare Ap. I. 15, Dial. c. ddq. tl/j.Qvt€s — to vSap 7-77S 

96; Ap. I. 16, Dial c. 101; Ap. I. ^j—th^ vdaros £(2rros 

16, 63; Ap. 1. 16, Dial. c. 76. — 0£?. 

2 (a) Matthew and Luke : Dial. 5 The differences of language which 

c. 17, 51, 76; Ap. 1. 19; I have noticed are the following: 

(P) Matthew and Mark: Ap. I. kclivov iroteire {Ap. 1. 15, bis)—8^pfia- 

15- Ta - irpo3dTcov(Ap. I. 16; Dial.c. 35. 

3 E.g. Ap.i. 15, 43; Dial cc. 49, Cf.Hebr.xi.37) — aKo\oirevhpQv(Dial 
77. 78, &c. c. 76) — \j/€v5a7r6<TTo\oi {Dial. c. 35) 

4 (a) Words characteristic of St — dtKaLoo-vvrjv teal evcrepeiav ir\rjpov- 

Matthew: e.g. paatXdaTwp <rdai {Dial c. 93) — at K\e?s (Dial c. 

ovpapQv-pLa\aKla-{iva wXtj- 17) — dfia (freq.). Credner (p. 260) 

pwdrj to py]6eu, de JResurr. quotes €7rl t$ ovojulclti avTov as a pe- 

c. 4.] — 6 iraTTip 6 ev Tots ov- culiarity, but surely without reason. 

pavols - ippedT]- ppexw (im- Cf. Matt, xviii.' 5, xxiv. 5 ; Mark ix. 

pen.) — avcLTeWetv (act.). 39; Luke ix. 48, 49, xxi. 8. 

(p) Words characteristic of St 6 The only references to the Pa- 
Luke: e.g. xdpu — eik77e- rabies are, I believe, to that of the 
Xifradai — vlbs v\pi<iTov. Sower and of the Talents (Dial. c. 

(7) Words characteristic of St 1 25). 



94 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. only two sayings to Him which are not substantially 
found there 1 . The first call to repentance 2 , the Sermon 
on the Mount 3 , the gathering from the East and West 4 , 
the invitation to sinners 5 , the description of the true fear , 
the charge to the Apostles 7 , the charge to the Seventy 8 , 
the mission of John 9 , the revelation of the Father 10 , the 
promise of the sign of Jonah u , the prophecy of the Pas- 
sion 12 , the acknowledgement of Sonship 13 , the teaching 
on the price of a soul 14 , on marriage 15 , on the goodness 
of God alone 16 , on the tribute due to Caesar 17 , on the two 
commandments 18 , the woes against the Scribes and Phari- 
sees 19 , the prophecy concerning false teachers 20 , the de- 
nouncement of future punishment on the wicked 21 , the 
teaching after the Resurrection 22 — are all clearly recog- 
nized, and quoted, if not always in the language of any 
one Evangelist, at least in the dialect of the New Testa- 
ment. At present we do not offer any explanation of 
the peculiar form which Justin's quotations wear. It is 
sufficient to remark that both in range and tone, in sub- 
stance and expression, they bear a general and striking 
likeness to the contents of our Gospels. 
ii. Justin's Up to this time it has been noticed that the quota- 

special quota- . i>^ -i-i. . i i -n i 

uonsfrom tions irom the Gospel-history in the early fathers are 

the Memoirs . x J y 

of the Apostles, almost uniformly anonymous. The words of Christ were 

1 Dial. c. 47: Aid ical 6 Tj/Jbtrepos xi. 27. 

- ictipios 'Irjaovs Xpurrbs elirev 'Ei> oh n Dial. c. 107. 

av bp.as KaTa\d(3<*), ev tovtols kqu Kpi- 12 Dial. cc. 76, 100. 

vQ (Kplvw, Credner). Dial. c. 35. la Dial. c. 76. 

See below, ii. 2. 7. 14 Ap. I. 15. 

2 Dial. c. 51 ; Matt. iv. 17. 15 Ap. I. 15; Matt. xix. 12. Dial. 

3 Ap. 1. 15, 16; Dial. cc. 96, 105, c. 81 ; Luke xx. 35, 36. 
115, 133. 16 Ap. 1. 16; Dial. c. 101. 

4 Dial. c. 76. 17 Ap. 1. 17. 

5 Ap. 1. 15. 6 Ap. 1. 19. 18 Ap. 1. 16; Dial. c. 93. 

7 Dial. c. 82 ; Matt. x. 22. 19 Dial. cc. 17, 112, 122. 

8 Ap. 1. 16; Luke x. 16. Dial. 20 Ap. 1. 16; Dial. cc. 35, 82. 

c. 76; Luke x. 19. 21 Ap. I. 16; Dial.c. 76. Cf. Ap. 

9 Dial. c. 51; Matt. xi. 12 — 15. I. 17; Luke xii. 48. 



10 



Ap. 1. 63; Dial. c. 100; Matt. 22 Ap. 1. 61 ; Dial. c. 53. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 95 

as a living voice in the Church, apart from any written CHA P- ll 
record; and the great events of His Life were symbolized 
in its services. In Justin the old and new meet. He 
habitually represents Christ as speaking, and not the 
Evangelist as relating His discourses; but he also dis- 
tinctly refers to histories, the famous Memoirs of the 
Apostles 1 , in which he found written 'all things con- 
cerning Jesus Christ/ These striking words mark the 
presence of a new age 2 . The written records were now 
regarded as the sufficient and complete source of know- 
ledge with regard to the facts of the Gospel. Tradition, 
to which Papias still appealed, was by Justin definitely 
cast aside as a new source of information. The expression 
is casual, but on this account it presents only the more 
clearly the instinctive conviction of the Christian society 
to which Justin belonged. 

The peculiar objects which Justin had in view in his The nature of 
extant writings did not suggest, even if they did not caihdforn^ 
exclude, any minute description of these comprehensive scriptton of 
records. It would have added nothing to the vivid picture moirs. 
of Christianity which he drew for the heathen to have 
quoted with exact precision the testimony of this or that 
Apostle, even if such a mode of quotation had been 
usual. One thing they might require to know, and that 
he tells them, that the words of Christ were still the text 
of Christian instruction, that the Memoirs of the Apo- 
stles were still read together with the writings of the 
Prophets in their weekly services 3 . The writings to 
which he appealed were not only complete in their con- 
tents but they were publicly attested. There was no room 

1 Tct , A7rofiif7)fJLOP€ijjj.ara tQv 'Ktto- rowed by several writers. In vari- 

vtSXuv. Cf. next page, note 3. The ous forms it appears frequently in 

title was probably adopted from that ecclesiastical Greek. Euseb. H. E. 

of Xenophon's well-known ^Atto/ulvt}- hi. 39 (p. 63, note 2); V. 8; VI. 25. 

novetifiaTCL Sw/c/odrofs, from which 2 Cf. p. 97, n. 2. 

indeed the word had been already bor- 3 Ap. I. 67. 



96 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. II. 



The different 
modes in 
which he 
quotes them 
in his Apo- 
logy and in 
his Dialogue. 



for interpolation of new facts or for the introduction of 
new documents into the use of the Christian Church. 
The heathen inquirer looked to the general character 
of Christianity, and on that point Justin satisfies him. 
So on the other hand the great difficulty in a contro- 
versy with a Jew was to shew that the humiliation and 
death of Christ were reconcileable with the Messianic 
prophecies. The chief facts were here confessed, the work 
of the Apologist was to harmonize the prediction and the 
fulfilment. In both cases his task was preparatory and not 
final, to lay the foundation of faith and not to build it up ; 
and with this object it was enough for him to assert gene- 
rally that the Memoirs which he quoted rested upon 
Apostolic authority \ 

The manner in which Justin alludes to these Memoirs 
of the Apostles in his first Apology and in his Dialogue 
with Trypho confirms what has been just said. If his 
mode of reference had not been modified by the nature of 
his subject, it would surely have been the same in both. 
As it is, there is a marked difference, and exactly such as 
might have been expected. In the Apology, which con- 
tains nearly fifty allusions to the Gospel-history, he speaks 
only twice of the Apostolic authorship of his Memoirs, 
and in one other place mentions them generally 2 . In 
the Dialogue, which contains about seventy allusions, he 
• quotes them ten times as The Memoirs of the Apostles, 
and in five other places as The Memoirs 3 . 



1 Dial. c. 103. See p. 102, note 2. 

* Ap. 1. 66, 67, 33 : cf. c. 61. 

3 It will be useful to give a classi- 
fication of all the passages in which 
Justin quotes the Memoirs, with the 
forms of quotation. The following 
will suffice: 

(a) Generally: tol dwofivrjfio- 
veTUfxara ruv dTroaroXcov. Dial. 
c. 100, yey pa juLfxfrov iv r. airofiv. r. 
aw. cc. 101, 103, 104, 106, ytypaw- 



rai kv t. dwo/iv. r. air. c. 102, iv 
r. dwofxv. T. air. SeS^Xwrcu. c. 106, 
iv r. dwop.v. t. air. dnXodrat yeyevrj- 
l^ivov. c. 88, Zypatyav 01 dwdcrroXot. 

(fi) Specially: Dial. c. 106, ye- 
ypd<p6ai iv roh dwo/xv. avrov (i. e. 
tlkrpov) yey ev-qpievov. c. 103, [ dwojULvrj- 
ixovevfiara] & <pnpu vwo tCov dwoard- 
\<j3v avrov Kal tQv iKeivois wapaKO- 
\ovdvadvTUJv (TWT€TaxGaL. 

(y) rd dirofivvpiop €}jp,aT a. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 97 

This difference is still more striking when examined chap. ii. 
closely. Every quotation of our Lord's words in the The gvota- 

J ... tiona in the 

Apology is simply introduced by the phrases ' thus Christ Apology. 
'said 1 or 'taught' or 'exhorted;' His words were their 
own witness. For the public events of His Life 'Justin 
refers to the Enrolment of Quirinus and the Acts of 
Pilate 1 . He quotes the 'Gospels' only when he must 
speak of things beyond the range of common history. 
Standing before a Roman emperor as the apologist of the 
Christians, he confines himself as far as possible to com- 
mon ground; and if he is compelled for illustration to 
quote the books of the Christians, he takes care to shew 
that they were recognized by the Church, and were no 
private documents of his own. Thus in speaking of the 
Annunciation he says : ' And the Angel of God sent to 
' the Virgin at that season announced to her glad tidings, 
' saying, Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy Spirit, and 
'bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest; 
■ and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His 
'people from their sins ; as those who have written Me- 
'nioirs of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ 
'taught us, whom we believed, since also the Prophetic 
'Spirit said that this would come to pass 2 .' So again 

Dial. c. 105, curd r. airofiv. efJLadofJLev. tjjjlCov 'Ir)o~ov 'Kpco'Tov edida^av k.t.\. 

c. 105, €K r. awo/jut. 'ejxadcv. c. 105, Credner (p. 129) raises a difficulty 

107, ev rots dwo/Jiu. yeypairrcu. about this description. Where, he 

1 Ap. I. 34 : cos /ecu fxadeiv duvaaOe asks, is the written Gospel which 
€K tQv a7roypa<p£v t&v yevopievwv could contain all ? The quotation 
iirl Kvprjviov. c. 35 : teal ravra otl points to St Luke ; and St Luke 
yeyove dvuaade iiadeiv e/c tQv iwl himself tells us that his Gospel con- 
JlovTiov UlXoltov yevofievwv &ktojv. tained an account concealing all 
Whether Justin referred to the apo- things (wepl wduTcov) that Jesus began 
cryphal Acts of Pilate which we now to do and to teach* (Acts i. 1). The 
have, or not, is of no importance: coincidence is at least well worthy 
it is only necessary to remark the of notice. It removes the difficulty, 
hind of evidence which he thought even if it do not also point to the 
best suited to his design. very source of Justin's language. 

2 Ap. I. 33 : cos ol diropLvr)ixove{f- Cf. supr. p. 95. 
vavres irdvra r<x irepl rod aojrrjpos 

C. H 



CHAP. II. 



The quota- 
tions iit, tio 
Dialogue. 



98 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

when explaining the celebration of the Eucharist he adds : 
' The Apostles in the Memoirs made by them, which are 
'called Gospels, handed down that it was thus enjoined 
'on them 1 ...' And once more, when describing the 
Christian Service he notices that ' the Memoirs of the 
'Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read, as 
1 Iodq: as the time admits 2 .' 

There is no further mention of the Memoirs in the 
Apology. In the Dialogue the case was somewhat differ- 
ent. Trypho was himself acquainted with the Gospel 3 , 
and Justin's language becomes proportionately more exact, 



1 Ap. I. 66 : ol yap dirbo'ToXoL 
ev rots yevopievois vir avrQv airo- 
lj,v7)jxovevixa(TLv, a /caAetrat evayyeXia, 
ovrcos irapidwKav evrerdXdai auTOis... 
The conjecture that d /caAetrat 
evayyeXta is a gloss is very unfor- 
tunate. It could not be intended 
for the information of Christian read- 
ers ; and a copyist would scarcely be 
likely to supply for the use of hea- 
then what Justin had not thought 
fit to add. Credner's argument that 
if our Gospels were referred to Jus- 
tin would have said o /caAetrat r a 
r e'er cap a evayy eXia (Gesch. d.N.T. 
Kanon, 107) is even more unhappy, 
and a singular instance of a want 
of apprehension of the circumstances 
of the writing. 

2 Ap. T. 67. 

3 Dial. c. 10 : rot, ev rep Xeyopiivu) 
evayyeXLu irapayyeXpiara. The use 
of the singular, which recurs c. 100, 
is worthy of notice when compared 
with the plural Ap. I. 66 (see above 
note 1); but nothing can be more un- 
reasonable than to conclude (Cred- 
ner, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanon, § 10) 
that the reference is necessarily to 
a single history. 'Evayye'Xtov and 
Evangelium w T ere used from the first 
w T ith the same latitude as the Gospel 
with us. Thus Irenseus in the gre.'it 
passage where he treats of the cha- 
racteristics and mystical types of the 
four Gospels says : birota ovv r\ 



irpayfxarela rod vlov rov deov, tomujtt) 
/cat r&v £&(jov (the Cherubim) ij jxopcpT)' 
/cat birola 7/ r(2v fawv pLopcprj, roiov- 
ros /cat b x a P aKr VP T °v evayyeXiov. 
TerpdpLop(pa yap ra [ua, rerpdfiop- 
<pov /cat rb evayy e"Xiov /cat 7} irpay- 
/-tar eta rod Kvpiov...rovTuv de ovrccs 
exovrcou //aratot iravTes...ol aderovv- 
res rrjv IMav rod evayyeXiov Kal 
et're irXeiova et're eXdrrova rwv 
elpajpievuv irapeia<pepovres evayyeXicov 
Trpoawira (Iren. III. 11. 8, 9). What- 
ever may be thought of the argu- 
ment of Irenseus, his words shew 
clearly that our four Gospels might 
be referred to either as evayy tXiov 
or evayy e"Xta. Tertullian's language 
is of the same character : Nam sicut 
in veteribus...ita in Evangelio re- 
sponsionem Domini ad Philippum 
tuentur (adv. Prax. 20). Of Theo- 
pbilus Jerome says : Legi sub ejus 
nomine in Evangelium Commentarios 
(de Virr. III. s. v.). And once again 
Origen at the beginning of his Com- 
mentary on St John writes Kal ydp 
roXpnqreov eiTreiv iraawv rwV ypacpQv 
elvai dtrapxw rb evayyeXiov. The 
plural occurs also in [Clem.] Ep. 
Sec. c. viii. Xe"yei 6 Kvptos ev ru 
evayyeXicp' and probably in Mart. 
Polyc. c. iv. ovx ovrcos diddcr/cei rb 
evayy 4Xtov the reference is to the 
written Gospel. See also p. 5: 
n. 1. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 89 

The words of our Lord are still quoted very often simply chap. ii. 
as His words, without any acknowledgment of a written 
record ; but from time to time, when reference is made to 
words which seem to be of more special moment, it is 
added that they are so ' written in the Gospel 1 .' In one Coincidence* 
passage the contrast between the substance of Christ's 
teaching and the record of it is brought out very clearly. 
After speaking of the death of John the Baptist, Justin 
adds : ' Wherefore also our Christ when on earth told 
' those who said that Elias must come before Christ, Ellas 
1 indeed will come and will restore, all things ; but I say to 
'you that Elias came already, and they knew him not, but 
c did to him all that they listed. And it is written, Then st Matthew 
'understood the disciples that he spake to them concerning 
c John the Baptist 2 ! In another place it appears that Jus- 
tin refers particularly to a passage in the Memoirs. ' The 
'mention of the fact,' he says, 'that Christ changed the 
'name of Peter one of the Apostles and that the event 
' has been written in his (Peter's) Memoirs, together with 
'His having changed the name of two other brethren 
'who were sons of Zebedee to Boanerges, tended to sig- si ::a,. ,c 
'nify that He was the same through whom the surname 
' Israel was given to Jacob, and Joshua to Hoshea 3 .' Now 
the surname given to James and John is only found at 
present in one of our Gospels, and there it is mentioned in 
immediate connexion with the change of Peter's name. 
That Gospel is the Gospel of St Mark, which by the uni- 
versal voice of antiquity was referred to the authority of 
St Peter 4 . That Justin found also in his Memoirs facts at 
present peculiar to St Luke's narrative is equally clear : 
for he writes 'Jesus as He gave up His Spirit upon the s.-Lm . 

1 Cf. below, ii. 2. a. 3 Dial. c. 106; Mark iii. 16, 17. 

2 Dial. c. 49; Matt. xvii. 13 ; cf. 4 Cf. p. 63, note 2. 
below I. c. 

H 2 



100 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [paet 

chap. ii. ' cross said Father, into Thy hands I commend my Spirit : 
' even as I learned from the Memoirs this fact also V 
fxacTdescHp- But this is not all: in his Apology Justin speaks of 
airship of the Memoirs generally as written by the Apostles. In the 
tne Memoirs j)j a i g ue n i s words are more precise : ' In the Memoirs, 
■ which I say were composed by the Apostles and those 
' who followed them, [it is written] that Sweat as drops [of 
'blood] streamed down [Jesus] as He was praying and 
'saying Let this cap if it be possible pass away from me 2 ! 
The description, it will be seen, precedes the quotation of 
a passage found in St Luke, the follower of an Apostle, 
and not an Apostle himself. Some such fact as this is 
needed to explain why Justin distinguishes at this parti- 
cular time the authorship of the records which he used. 
And no short account would apply more exactly to our 
present Gospels than that which he gives. Two of them 
were written by Apostles, two by their followers. There 
were many Apocryphal Gospels, but it is not known that 
any one of them bore the name of a follower of the Apo- 
stles. The application of Justin's words to our Gospels 
compared seems indeed absolutely necessary when they are compared 
Tertuiuan. with those of Tertullian, who says 3 : 'we lay down as a 

1 Dial. c. 105 ; Luke xxiii. 46. find that cti^aro? alone is omitted 

2 Dial. c. 103: ep ro?s airofxvy}- elsewhere than in Justin. Cf. Gries- 
fxoveufjLao-Lu, a (pTj/JLL virb tlcp airo- bach, with Schulz's additions, ad loc. 
aroXcov avrov kclI tCov emuvois irapa- Epiphanius (adv. Hcer. II. 2. 59, 

* KoXovdrjadvTCjjv (Luke i. 3) (rvurerdx- quoted by Semisch) insists on the 

6ac, [yeypawTCLL] 8ri Idp&s (heel sweat only, though he quotes the 

Opbfxfioi Karex^ro avrov evxofJievov verse at length. 

/cat Xeyovros UapeXderu} el bvvarbv 3 Tertull. adv. Marc. IV. 2 : Con- 

rb TroTrjpLou tovto. Luke xxii. 44 stituimus imprimis evangelicum in- 

(Matt. xxvi. 39). The omission of strumentum oposfoZos autores habere, 

the word aijuaros was probably sug- quibus hoe munus evangelii promul- 

gested by the passage in Psalm xxii. gandi ab ipso Domino sit imposituiu : 

14 which Justin is explaining (Se- si et apostolicos, non tamen solos sed 

misch, p. 147). It cannot have arisen cum apostolis et post apostolos... 

from any Docetic tendency, as the Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis 

whole context shews. The entire Johannes et Matth<eus insinuant, ex 

pericope(vv. 43, 44) is omitted by very apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instau- 

important authorities, but I cannot rant... 



I.] Justin Martyr. 101 

1 principle first that the Evangelic Instrument has Apostles chap. ii. 
' for its authors, on whom this charge of publishing the 
' Gospel was imposed by the Lord Himself ; that if [it 
'includes the writings of] Apostolic men also, still they 
' were not alone, but [wrote] with [the help of] Apostles 
'and after [the teaching of] Apostles... In fine, John and 
' Matthew out of the number of the Apostles implant faith 
' in us, Luke and Mark out of the number of their followers 
'refresh it../ 

In addition to these cardinal quotations from the Me- Th* substance 

* of Just ins 

moirs, Justin refers to them elsewhere in his Dialogue for quotations 

' ° jrorn them. 

facts and words from the Evangelic history. As the exact 
form of all these quotations will be examined afterwards as 
far as may be necessary, it will be sufficient now merely to 
shew by a general enumeration the extent of their coinci- 
dence with our Gospels 1 . They include an account of the 
Birth of our Lord from a Virgin 2 , of the appearance of a 
Dove at His Baptism 3 , of His Temptation 4 , of the con- 
spiracy of the wicked against Him 5 , of the hymn which He 
sang with His disciples before His betrayal 6 , of His silence 
before Pilate (Herod) 7 , of His Crucifixion at the Passover 8 , 
of the mockery of His enemies 9 . So also Justin quotes 
from them His reproof of the righteousness of the Phari- 
sees 10 , and how He gave them only the sign of Jonah 11 , and 
proclaimed that He alone could reveal the Father to 
men 12 . 

This then is the sum of what Justin says of the Me- ojaiuTaY 1 ' 
moirs of the Apostles. They were many, and yet one 13 : o/thlmT 1 ' 

1 It is interesting to compare this 7 Dial. c. 102 ; Luke xxiii. 9. 
summary of special references with 8 Dial. c. in. 

the list of all Justin's Evangelic re- 9 Dial. c. 101 ; Matt, xxvii. 39 — 

ferences given already, pp. 88 ff. 43. 

2 Dial. c. 105. 10 Dial. c. 105 ; Matt. v. 20. 

3 Dial. c. 88. n Dial. c. 107; Matt, xii.38— 41. 

4 Dial.c. 103. 13 Dial. c. 100; Matt. xi. 27. 

5 Dial. c. T04. Vi Ap. I. 66: a /caXetrcu evayyeXia. 

6 Dial. c. 106 ; Matt. xxvi. 30. Dial. c. 100 : kv r<£ euayyeXicf ye~ 



102 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [paet 



chap. II. 



Objections to 
their identifi- 
cation with 
our Gospels. 



(i) The authors' 



tliey were called Gospels: they contained a record of all 
things concerning Jesus Christ: they were admitted by 
Christians generally : they were read in their public ser- 
vices: they were of Apostolic authority, though not ex- 
clusively of Apostolic authorship: they were composed in 
part by Apostles and in part by their followers. And 
beyond this, we gather that they related facts only men- 
tioned at present by one or other of the Evangelists : that 
thus they were intimately connected with each one of the 
synoptic Gospels: that they contained nothing, as far as 
Justin expressly quotes them, which our Gospels do not 
now substantially contain. And if we go still further, and 
take in the whole mass of Justin's anonymous references 
to the life and teaching of Christ, the general effect is the 
same. The resemblance between the narratives is in the 
one case more exact, but in the other it is more extensive. 
Up to this point of our inquiry, and omitting for the mo- 
ment all consideration of Justin's historical relation to the 
anonymous Roman Canon of Muratori 1 and to Irenseus, the 
identification of his Memoirs with our Gospels seems to 
be as reasonable as it is natural. But on the other hand 
it is said that there are fatal objections to this identifica- 
tion; that Justin nowhere mentions the Evangelists by 
name: that the text of his quotations differs materially 
from that of the Gospels : that he introduces Apocryphal 
additions into his narrative. And each of these statements 
must be examined before the right weight can be assigned 
to these general coincidences between the Gospels and 
Memoirs in subject, language, a"nd character, of which we 
have hitherto spoken. 

It has been already shewn 2 that there were peculiar 

ypairrai. This view of the essential the first to recognize, however im- 

oneness of the Gospels explains very perfectly, variety in this unity. See 

naturally the freedom with which p. 98, n. 3. 
different narratives were combined ^ See below § 12. 

in quotation. Irenseus was apparently 2 p. 95. 



meaiiji e ' 



L] Justin Martyr. 103 

circumstances in Justin's case which rendered any definite chap, h 
quotation of the Evangelists unlikely and unsuitable, even na ""; 
if such a mode of quotation had been common at the time. 
But in fact when he referred to written records of Christ's tut tin 
life and words he made an advance beyond which the later aantiy 

i i 1 1 m • • referred to 

Apologists rarely proceeded . Tatian his scholar has anonymously 
several allusions to passages contained in the Gospels of writer*. 
St Matthew and St John, but they are all anonymous 3 . 
Athenagoras quotes the words of our Lord as they stand 
in St Matthew four times, and appears to allude to ]3as- 
sages in St Mark and St John, but he nowhere mentions 
the name of an Evangelist 3 . Theophilus in his Books to 
Autolycus cites five or six precepts from 'the Gospel' or 
'the Evangelic voice,' and once only mentions John as c a 
'man moved by the Holy Spirit,' quoting the prologue 
to his Gospel; though he elsewhere classes the Evangel- 
ists with the Prophets as all inspired by the same Spirit 4 . 
In Hermias and Minucius Felix there appears to be no 
reference at all to the Gospels. The usage of Tertullian 
is very remarkable. In his other books he quotes the 
Gospels continually, and mentions each of the Evangelists 
by name, though his references to the writers of the Go- 
spels are rare ; but in his Apology, while he gives a gene- 
ral view of Christ's life and teaching, and speaks of the 
Scriptures as the food and the comfort of the Christian", 

1 Cf. Norton, Genuineness of the vbfios dprjKev anoXovda evplcrKerai kclI 
Gospels, I. 137; Semisch, 83 ff. tcl tQv -KpocpnrQiv koX t<2v etfayye- 

2 Orat. c. Gr. c. 30; Matt. xiii. 44. XiW 2x ELV ' 5lcl to rovs iravras irvev- 
Cf. Fragg. i., ii.; Matt. vi. 24, 19; jmarocpopovs hi irvevfxaTi deov \e>a- 
xxii. 30. Orat. c. 5 ; John i. 1 : c. 4 ; \7jKfrai. If the Commentaries at- 
John iv. 24 : c. 13; John i. 5 : c. 19 ; tributed to him weregenuinehe -wrote 
John i. 3. on the four Evangelists. 

3 Ap. p. 2 ; Matt. v. 39, 40 : p. Cf. ad Autol. in. p. 126; Matt. v. 
ti ; Matt. v. 44, 45 : p. 12 ; Matt. 28^3 2 > 44> 4^; vi. 3 : id. 11. p. 92 ; 
v. 46, 47 : p. 36; Matt. v. 28 : Ap. Luke xviii. 17 : id. n. § 22, p. 100 ; 
p. 37; Mark x. 6, 11 : Ap. p. 12 ; John i. 1, 3. 

John xvii. 3. 5 Ap. cc. xxi. pp. 57, sqq. ; xxxix. 

4 Ad Autolycum, 111. § 1 2, p. 124 : p. 93. 
£rt /jltju kclI irepl 5LKCUO<Tvi>r)s rjs 6 



104 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. he nowhere cites the Gospels, and scarcely exhibits any 
coincidence of language with them 1 . Clement of Alexan- 
dria, as is well known, investigated the relation of the 
Synoptic Gospels to St John, and his use of the words of 
Scripture is constant and extensive ; and yet in his ' Ex- 
' hortation to Gentiles/ while he quotes every Gospel, and 
all except St Mark repeatedly, he mentions St John alone 
by name, and that but* once 2 . Cyprian in his address to 
Demetrian quotes words of our Lord as given by St Mat- 
thew and St John, but says nothing of the source from 
which he derived them 3 . The books of Origen against 
Celsus turned in a great measure on the criticism of the 
Gospels, for Celsus had diligently examined them to find 
objections to Christianity; and yet even there the common 
custom prevails. In the first book for instance our Lord's 
words are quoted from the text of our Gospels more than 
a dozen times anonymously, and only once, so far as I 
have observed, with the mention of the Gospel in which 
they were to be found 4 . At a still later time Lactantius 
blamed Cyprian for quoting Scripture in a controversy 
with a heathen 5 , and though he shews in his Institutions 
an intimate acquaintance with the writings of the Evan- 
gelists he mentions only John by name, quoting the be- 
ginning of his Gospel 6 . Arnobius again makes no allusion 
to the Gospels; and Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most 
of what is known of the history of the New Testament, 
though he quotes the Gospels eighteen times in his ' In- 
troduction to Christian Evidences' (Prseparatio Evange- 

1 The only passage I have noticed quotes the Gospels of St John St 
is c. xxxi. (Matt. v. 44). The same Luke and St Mark by name for facts, 
is true of the imperfect book ad Na- cc. Ii., lx., lxii. ; and St Matthew 
tiones. three times as used by Celsus, cc. 

2 Protrep. § 59. xxxiv , xxxviii., xl. 

3 Ad Demetr. c. i. ; Matt. vii. 6: 5 Instit.v. 4. 
c. xxiv. ; John xvii. 3. 6 Instit. IV. 8. 

4 *c. lxiii. ; Luke v. 8. He also 



I.] Justin Martyr. 105 

lica), yet always does so without naming the Evangelist of chap, it 
whose writings he makes use. 

It would be easy to extend what has been said: — to Theeuetm ■» <■/ 

anonymous 

shew that the words of ' the Apostle' are quoted scarcely referenceeven 

L x ■ still more 

less frequently than those of the Lord, without any more extensive. 
exact citation -.—that this custom of indefinite reference is 
not confined to Apologetic writings, of which indeed it is 
peculiarly characteristic, but likewise traceable in many 
other cases : — that a habit which arose almost necessarily 
in an age of manuscript literature has not ceased even when 
the printing-press has left no material hinderances to occa- 
sion or excuse it ; but this would lead us away from our sub- 
ject, and it must be sufficiently clear that if Justin differs 
in any way from other similar writers as to the mode in 
which he introduces his Evangelic quotations, it is because 
he has described with unusual care the sources from which 
he drew them. He is not less but more explicit than 
later Apologists as to the writings from which he derives 
his accounts of the Lord's life and teaching. 

Justin's method of quotation from the Old Testament The case of 

• t on -i tit quotations 

may seem at first sisrht to create a difficulty. It has been from the 

iiiiii •• -t r* Prophets. 

calculated that he makes 197 citations with exact refer- 
ences to their source, and 117 indefinitely. But under 
any circumstances this fact would affect the peculiar esti- 
mation, and not the historical reception, of the Xew Tes- 
tament books 1 . And since the same phenomenon occurs 
in writers like Clement of Alexandria and Cyprian, whose 
views on the inspiration and authority of the New Testa- 
ment were most definite and full, its explanation must be 
sought for on other principles. As far as Justin is con- 
cerned, the search leads to a satisfactory conclusion. His 
quotations are, I believe, exclusively prophecies; and the 

1 In the Apostolic Fathers Scriptural quotations are almost universally 
anonymous. Cf. p. 45. 



106 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [pakt 

chap. ii. purpose for which he introduces them required particu- 
larity of reference 1 . The proof of Christianity, even for 
the heathen, was to be derived, as he tells us, from the 
fulfilment of prophecy 2 . The gift of foretelling the future 
— for already in his time this was the common view of a 
prophet's work — was a certain mark of a divine power; 
and the antiquity of the Prophets invested them with a 
venerable dignity beyond all other poets or seers. To 
quote prophecy habitually without mentioning the pro- 
phet's name would be to deprive it of half its value ; and 
if it seem strange that Justin does not quote Evangelists 
like Prophets, it is no less worthy of notice that he does 
quote by name the single prophetic book of the New Tes- 
justin refers tament. * Moreover also among us a man named John, 
caiy'pseofst ( one of the Apostles of Christ, prophesied in a revelation 

John by name. x . 

' made to him that those who have believed on our Christ 
'shall spend a thousand years in Jerusalem 3 ...' This 
reference to the Apocalypse appears to illustrate the dif- 
ference which Justin makes between his quotations from 
the Prophecies and the Gospels; and it is sufficiently jus- 
tified both by the usage of later writers and by the object 
which he had in view 4 . 
( 2 ) The quo- From Justin's indefmiteness of reference we next pass 

from the . to his inexactness of quotation. Though it sound like a 
c text. m paradox, it is no less true, that up to a certain point fami- 

liarity with a book causes it to be quoted inaccurately. 

1 e. g. Ap. I. 32 : Muvcttjs irpQ- rj/meTipy 'Kpto'Tip 7rLO-T€uaavTas irpoe- 
ros tQv irpocp-rjTtdv yevbixevos...Kal cp-qrevae,.. The constrained manner of 
'Hcrcuas de ctXXos ir po<p7)rns . . . this special reference in itself serves 

2 Ap. 1. 14 ; and 30: 7-771/ &ir68eii-iv to explain why Justin did not men- 
7f5?7 7roir)o-6/j,€0a ov toIs \eyovjt -ma- tion the Christian writers more fre- 
revoPTes dXXa roh irpo<p7]T€vovcri irplv quently. 

77 yevto-dcu kclt' avayKyv TreiddjULevoi ... 4 It is very remarkable that Jus- 

3 Dial. c. 81 : iireidr] kclI nap' tin makes no allusion to our Lord's 
yfxiv dvrip tls (p 6vop.a 'Icodvvrjs, eh prophecy of the destruction of Jeru- 
tlov diroaroKwv rov Xpio~Tov, ev cltto- salem. It is quoted in the Clemen- 
Ka\\j\p€L yevofihri avrtp x^ La % Tr ) tine Homilies (Bom. III. 15 ; Credner, 
iroLTjaeLv tv 'lepovaaXrip. tovs ti£ i. '291). 



I.] Justin Martyr. 107 

The memory is trusted where otherwise the text would be chap. it. 
transcribed, and the error thus originated becomes perhaps 
a tradition. In addition to this disturbing influence, 
which must have been at least as powerful in Justin's time 
as in our own and as fruitful of mistakes, the accuracy of 
Scriptural quotations varied . according to a natural law rariov* </«- 
derived from their subject-matter. In history the facts of cur^cfiV' 
the narrative seem of the first importance: in ethics the Q uotatlon - 
sense and spirit of the precept: in prophecy and doctrine 
the precise words of the Divine lesson. Conformably with 
this general rule Justin like the other Fathers mav be 
expected to relate the events of Christ's life often in his 
own words, combining, arranging, modifying, as the occa- 
sion may require : like them he may be expected to 
change but rarely the language of the Gospels in citing 
Christ's teaching, though he transpose words and clauses : 
like them too, we may be allowed to believe, he would 
have quoted the language of the New Testament with 
scrupulous care in his polemical writings if they had been 
preserved to us. If this be a mere supposition, it must 
be remembered that we have no longer those books of 
his in which we might have expected to find critical 
accuracy. 

But at the same time it is to be noticed that Justin TU genera i 
appears to be remarkable for freedom, not only in his use justin'/quo 
of classical authors 1 , but also in his treatment of the Old thJoh/re"' 
Testament, even in the Dialogue, in which it forms the 
real basis of his argument. In these cases his quotations 
are confessedly taken from books, whether by memory or 
reference ; and the original text can be compared with his 
version of it. Here at least we can determine the limits 

1 Semisch has examined them in 473 d); Ap, II. 10 (Tim. p. 28 c), 
detail, pp. 232 ff. Examples may Ap.il. 11 (Xen. Mem. 11. 1). 
be found, Ap.i. 3 (Plat, liesp. v. p. 



108 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. 



[part 



CHAP. II. 



(a) Combina- 
tion of diffe- 
rent texts. 



In the 

Dialogue. 



Til the 
Apology. 



of accuracy within which he confined himself; and when 
they have been once fixed they will serve as a standard. 
No greater accuracy is to be expected anywhere than in 
the use of the Prophecies; and a few characteristic exam- 
ples of his mode of dealing with them as well as with the 
other writings of the Old Testament will shew what kind 
of variations we must be prepared to find in any refer- 
ences which he may make to the Gospel-narrative 1 . 

The first and most striking phenomenon in his quota- 
tions is the combination of detached texts, sometimes 
taken from different parts of the same book, and some- 
times from different books. Thus when he is explaining 
the presence of the spirit of Elias in John the Baptist 
against Trypho's objection he says: 'Does it not seem to 
' vou that the same transference was made in the case of 
'Joshua... when Moses was commanded to place his hands 
'on Joshua (Numb, xxvii. 18), when God said to him 
1 And I will impart to him of the Spirit that is in thee 2 ?' 
(c. xi. 17). So again when shewing that the Word is the 
Messenger (ayyekos /cat clttogtoXos) of God he adds : ' And 
'moreover this will be made clear from the writings of 
'Moses. Now it is said in them thus: The Angel of the 
'Lord spake to Moses in a flame of fire out of the bush 
.'and said: I am That I Am (6 d&v), the God of Abraham.; 
'the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers. 
' Go down to Egypt and lead forth my people 3 ! Passages 
of different writers are combined even when the citation 
is made expressly from one. ' For Jeremiah cries thus/ we 



1 See Note A at the end of the 
Section. 

2 Dial. c. 49. The passage Numb, 
xi. 17 refers to the LXX. elders. 
Credner appears to have omitted this 
quotation. 

3 Ap. 1. 63. Exod. iii. 2, 14, 6, 



10. 'These free quotations are 
'adapted to the wants of heathen 
'readers' (Credner, n. 58). By a 
reasonable adaptation these words 
become : ' These free quotations [from 
1 the Gospel] are adapted to the wants 
'of Jewish [or heathen] readers.' -• 



I.] Justin Martyr. 109 

read, ' Woe to you, because ye forsook a living fountain, chap. ii. 
' and digged for yourselves broken cisterns which ivill not be 
'able to hold ivater (Jerem. ii. 13). Shall there be a wil- 
' derness [without ivater] where the Mount Sion is (Isai. xvi. 
' 1, LXX.), because I gave to Jerusalem a bill of divorce in 
'your sight 1 ? (Jerem. iii. 8).' The intertexture of various 
passages is sometimes still more complicated. ' What then 
' the people of the Jews will say and do when they see 
' Christ's advent in glory has been thus told in prophecy 
'by Zacharias: I will charge the four winds to gather 
'together my children who have- been scattered, I will 
'charge the north wind to bring, and the south wind not 
' to hinder (cf. Zech. ii. 6 ; Isai. xliii. 5). And then shall 
'there be in Jerusalem a great lamentation, not a lamen- 
'tation of mouths and lips, but a lamentation of heart 
' (Zech. xii. 11), and they shall not rend their garments, 
' but their minds (Joel ii. 13). They shall lament tribe to 
'tribe (Zech. xii. 12); and then shall they look on Him 
'ivhom they pierced (Zech. xii. 10), and say: Why, Lord, 
'didst Thou make us to err from Thy ivay? (Isai. lxiii. 17). 
' The glory which our fathers blessed is turned to our re- 
'proach 2 ' (Isai. lxiv. 11). 

The same cause which led Justin to combine various w Adaptation 

of texts. 

texts in other places led him to compress, t6 individualize, 
to adapt, the exact words of Scripture for the better ex- 
pression of his meaning ; and at times he may appear to 
misuse the passages which he quotes. The extent to 



1 Dial. c. 1 14. Credner (n. -246) 6\perai 6 Acids vjjllov kclI yvwpie? els Si> 
remarks that Barnabas (c. xi.) con- e^eKevr-naav. The reading in the 
nects the two former passages to- LXX% is eiripXexpovrai irpbs fie avb" 
gether ; yet his text is wholly differ- &v KaTCjpxrjo-avro, which arose from 
ent from that of Justin. Cf. Semisch, a double interchange of the Hebrew 
262 an m. letters "1*7. The rendering which 

2 Ap. 1. 52. The clause o-tyovrai Justin gives occurs in John xix. 37, 
els ov e^eKtvT-na-av is quoted in the and sim. Apoc. i. 7. Cf. Credner, 
Dialogue (c. 14) as from Hosca, pp. 293 if. 



110 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



CHAP. II 



In the 

Dialogue. 



In the 

Apology. 



which this licence is carried will appear from the following 
examples. 

In speaking of the duty of proclaiming the truth 
which we know, and of the judgment which will fall on 
those who know and tell it not, he quotes the declaration 
of God by Ezechiel : ' I have placed thee as a watchman to 
' the house of Judah. Should the sinner sin, and thou not 
' testify to him, he indeed shall perish for his sin, but from 
' thee will I require his blood; but if thou testify to him, 
'thou shalt be blameless' (Ezech. iii. 17 — 19). In this 
quotation only two phrases of the original text remain ; 
but the remainder expresses the sense of the Prophet with 
conciseness and force 1 . Again, when referring to Plato's 
idea of the cruciform distribution of the principle of life 
through the universe 2 , he says, 'This likewise he borrowed 
* from Moses ; for in the writings of Moses it is recorded 
'that at that point of time when the Israelites came out 
'of Egypt and were in the wilderness venomous beasts 
'encountered them, vipers and asps and serpents of all 
' kinds, which killed the people ; and that by inspiration 
' and impulse of God Moses took brass and made an image 
' of a cross, and set this on (iirl, dat.) the holy tabernacle, 
'and said to the people: Should you look on this image 
' and believe in it, you shall be saved. And he has recorded 
' that when this was done the serpents died, and so the 
.'people escaped death 3 ' (Numb. xxi. 8, 9, sqq.). The de- 



1 Dial c. 82. 

2 PI. Tim. p. 36 B : ravrrju ovv rr\v 
i;Vo~racrLV irdaav dnr\r}i> Karen. /j.tjkos 
ax^cras, ix£o~y\v irpbs fxecnjv eKarepav 
&X\r)\ais olov %t (%) Trpoa(3a\iop tcare- 
Kafx^ev els ktukKov... Justin's quota- 
tion of the passage is characteristic : 
'Exlao-ev avrbv [sc. rbv vibv rod deov] 
ev r(£ izavri. 

3 Ap. 1. 60. From the compari- 
son of John iii. 15, I prefer to put 
the stop after £v ai'ry. Credner 



(p. 28) omits h apparently by mis- 
take. It will be observed that in 
the quotation each chief word is 
changed: Trpoa^XewcLv is substituted 
for i7nj3\^7reLV, aw&o'dai for ffiv, and 
ttio-t€V€ii> is introduced as the condi- 
tion of healing. These changes are 
also preserved in a general way in 
the second allusion to the passage, 
Dial. c. 94, which otherwise ap- 
proaches more nearly to the LXX. 



I.] Justin Martyr. Ill 

tails of the fabrication of a cross rather than of a serpent, chap. ii. 
of the erection of the life-giving symbol on the tabernacle 
— that type of the outward world, of the address of Moses 
to the people, are due entirely to Justin's interpretation of 
the narrative. He gave what he thought to be the spirit 
and meaning of the passage,, and in so doing has not pre- 
served one significant word of the original text. 

In many cases it is possible to explain these peculiari- These varia- 

\ x 4 X /■ turns in many 

ties of Justin's quotations by supposing that he intention- cases maHie 

1 J r3 - . errors of 

ally deviated from the common text in order to bring out memory. 
its meaning more clearly : in others he may have followed 
a traditional rendering or accommodation of scriptural 
language, such as are current at all times ; but after every 
allowance has been made, a large residue of passages 
remains from which it is evident that the variations often 
spring from errors of memory. He quotes, for instance, 
the same passage in various forms ; and that not only in 
different books, but even in the same book, and at short 
intervals. He ascribes texts to wrong authors ; and that 
in the Dialogue as well as in the Apology, even when he 
shews in other places that he is not ignorant of their true 
source 1 . And once more: the variations are most remark- 
able and frequent in short passages: that is exactly in 
those for which it would seem superfluous to unroll the 
MS. and refer to the original text 2 . 

If then it be sufficiently made out that Justin dealt in Av^'cain 

. _z -i-i i Of Justin's 

this manner with the Old Testament, which was sanctioned itvanyeitc 
in each jot and tittle by the authority of Christ Himself, 
which was already inwrought into the Christian dialect by 

1 In the Apology: Zephaniah for 9) is rightly quoted in Dial. c. 53; 

Zechariah (c. 35); Jeremiah for the next (Dan. -vii. 13) rightly al- 

Daniel (c. 51); Isaiah for Jeremiah ludedtoinD/rt^. c. 76. Cf. Semisch, 

(c. 53). In the Dialogue: Jeremiah 240 anm. 

for Isaiah (c. 12); Hosea for Zecha- a See Note B at the end of the 

riah (c. 14) ; Zechariah for Malachi Section, 
(c. 49). The first passage (Zech. ix. 



112 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. long and habitual use, which was familiarized to the 
Christian disputant by continual and minute controversy: 
— can it be expected that he should use the text of the 
Gospels with more scrupulous care ? that he should in 
every case refer to his manuscript to ascertain the exact 
words of the record? that he should preserve them free 
from traditional details ? that he should keep distinctly 
separate cognate accounts of the same event, complemen- 
tary narratives of the same discourse ? If he combined 
the words of Prophets to convey to the heathen a fuller 
notion of their divine wisdom, and often contented himself 
with the sense of Scripture even when he argued with a 
Jew, can it be a matter of surprise that to heathen and to 
Jews alike he sets forth rather the substance than the 
letter of those Christian writings which had for them no 
individual authority ? In proportion as the idea of a New 
Testament Canon was less clear in his time, or at least 
less familiarly realized by ancient usage, than that of the 
Old Testament ; in proportion as the Apostolic writings 
were invested with less objective worth for those whom he 
addressed; we may expect to find his quotations from the 
Evangelists more vague and imperfect and inaccurate than 
those from the Prophets. So far as it is not so, the fact 
implies that personal study had supplied the place of tra- 
ditional knowledge, that what was wanting to the Chris- 
. tian Scriptures in the clearness of defined authority was 
made up by the sense of their individual value. 
How far jus- To examine in detail the whole of Justin's quotations 
trons from the would be tedious and unnecessary. It will be enough to 

Gospel-narrctr • . 

tive need be examine (i) those which are alleged by mm as quotations, 
and (2) those also which though anonymous are yet found 
repeated with the same variations either in Justin's own 
writings or (3) in heretical books. It is evidently on 
these quotations that the decision hangs. If they be 



I.] Justin Martyr. 113 

naturally reconcilable with Justin's use of the Canonical 
Gospels, the partial inaccuracy of the remainder can be of 
little moment. But if they be clearly derived from unca- 
nonical sources, the general coincidence of the mass with 
our Gospels only shews that there was a wide uniformity 
in the Evangelic tradition. ■ 

In seven passages only, as far as I can discover 1 , does 
Justin profess to give the exact words recorded in the Me- 
moirs; and in these, if there be no reason to the contrary, 
it is natural to expect that he will preserve the exact lan- 
guage of the Gospels which he used, just as in anonymous 
quotations we may conclude that he is trusting to me- 
mory. The result of a first view of these passages is 
striking. Of the seven five agree verbally with the text 
of St Matthew or St Luke, exhibiting indeed three slight 
various readings not elsewhere found, but such as are 
easily explicable 2 : the sixth is a compressed summary of 



CHAP. II. 



(a) Express 

quotations 
from the 
Memoirs. 



Their agree- 
me i it with 
the Gospel 
text. 



1 Ap. I. 66 (Luke xxii. 19, 20) and 
Dial. c. 103 (Luke xxii. 42 — 44) are 
not merely quotations of words, but 
concise narratives. 

Differences in detail supposed to 
have been derived by Justin from 
the Memoirs will be examined in the 
next division (3). 

- The passages are these : 

1. Dial. c. 103: ovtos 6 8id{3o\os 
...ev rots cLTTOfivrjiuLovevaaaL tQp airo- 
gtoKlop yeypawrat TrpoaeXdCop clvtQ 
real ireipdfap p-ixP 1 r °v chre&> avrcd 
Hpoo~Kvi>r]o~6v /mot' Kal dwoKpipacrdat. 
avrcd top 'KptarSv' *'tiraye dirlau 
julov crarapa' Kvpiov top Bebv 
aov wpoaKVPrjaeis teal avrcp 
{i6vu3 Xarpevaeis = Matt. iv. 10. 
The addition biriaio jjlov is supported 
by fairly good authority, though pro- 
bably it is only a very early interpo- 
lation. The form of the quotation 
explains the omission of ytypatrrai 
yap, which Justin indeed elsewhere 
recognizes, c. 125: airoKpLverai yap 
avTui' TeypairraL' Kvpiop top deop 

K.T.X. 



In the Clementine Homilies the 
answer assumes an entirely different 
complexion (Horn. vin. 21): airoKpi- 
vdfievos ovp e<prj' TeypairraL' Kvpcop 
top Qeop aov (po(3rjdiiar) Kal avrtp 
Xarpevaeis jxopop. 

2. Dial. c. 105 : ravra elprjKepaL 
ip rots a7ro[JLPijfjLOpevfjLacri yey •pairrai' 
'Eap pLT) irepiaaevar} vjjlQp 77 di- 
KaiocrvPT] irXeiop tQp ypafifia- 
retop Kal QapcaaLcop, ov fir] ela- 
eXdrjre els ttjp (3aaiXeiap tQp 
ovpapQp = ^l&tt. v. 20. The trans- 
position vjjlQp i} 5lk. is certainly cor- 
rect. For Clement's variations in 
quoting this verse see Griesbach, 
JSyynb. Crit. 11. 251. 

3. Dial. c. 107: ytypairrai ep 
rots airofJ.prjpLOPevp.aaiP on 61 dirb rod 
ytpovs vpaop av^rjrovpres avrco e\eyop 
6tl £e?£op ijpuP' ar/p-elop. Kal dire- 
Kplparo avroLS' Teped iroprjpd Kal 
jjlolx^XIs ar\p.eXop eiri^-qrel, Kal 
o'Tjfie'iop ov oodr)aerai avroh el 
117} to arjixelop . 'Iwi/a = Matt. xii. 
[38 >] 39- The first part, as its form 
shews, is quoted freely; our Lord's 

I 



CHAP. I. 



Their dis- 
agreement. 
Matt, xxvii. 

39 sqq.; 

Luke xxiii. 35. 



114 TAe J.$re of the Greek Apologists. [part 

words related by St Matthew: the seventh alone presents 
an important variation in the text of a verse, which is 
however otherwise very uncertain. Our inquiry is thus 
confined to the last two instances; and it must be seen 
whether their disagreement from the Synoptic Gospels 
is such as to outweigh the agreement of the remaining 
five. 

The first passage occurs in the account which Justin 
gives of the Crucifixion as illustrating the prophecy in 
Psalm xxi. : ' Those who looked on Christ as He hung 
'on the Cross shook their heads and pointed with their 
' lips and sneering said in mockery these things which are 
* also written in the Memoirs of His Apostles : He called 
'Himself the Son of God; let Him come down and walk; 
' let God save Him 1 . 9 These exact words do not occur in 



answer differs from the text of St 
Matthew only in reading avrols for 
avrrj. Such a confusion of relatives 
with an antecedent like y erect, is very- 
common. Cf. Luke x. 13 (KadrjfJLe- 
vol -cu); Acts ii. 3 (eK&dtcrev -av). 
Winer, N. T. Gramm. § 58. 4. b, 
p. 458 (ed. 6). 

4. Dial. c. 49: 6 rj/xirepos Xpi- 
crbs elpr)Kei...'~H.\las fxev eXeticrerai 
Kal airoKaro.CT'qaeL iravra' \4- 
yw §£ vjjlIp 6tl 'HX^ccs^St; rfX- 
6e f Kal ovk eiriyvwcrav avrbv 
dXX* eirol-qaav avT<$ oaa Jjde'XT)- 
aav' Kal yiypairrai 8tl Tore crvv- 
.rjKav ol fiadrj ral 8ti irepl 'Iw- 
dvvov rod fiairTlaTOV eXirev ctv- 
tol s = Matt. xvii. 11 — 13. The ex- 
press quotation (ver. 1 3) agrees exact- 
ly with the text of St Matthew, and 
Credner admits that it must have 
been taken from his Gospel (p. 237). 
In the other part the text of St Mat- 
thew has tpxerai (irp&Tov is certainly 
spurious), and ev aurcp, but the pre- 
position is omitted by S D F U 
<fcc, see however Mark ix. 13. Cred- 
ner insists (p. 219) on the variation 
iXefoeaQai (repeated again in the 



same chapter); with how much jus- 
tice the various readings in Luke 
xxiii. 29 may shew. See also Gen. 
xviii. 14: avaffrptyo) (Dial. c. 56); 
aTroaTpe'xpb) (Dial. c. 126) ; dvaaTpi\f/(o 
(LXX.). Cf. p. 124, and the next 
note. 

5. Dial. c. 105 : Kal yap dwodi~ 
5oi>s to irvevjJLa iirl t<$ aravpQ etire' 
Hdrep elf xe?/)ds o~ov irapari- 
defiai rb irvevfxd fiov &s Kal 
€K tQv aTTOfxvqixovevixdrujv Kal tovto 
fyutflo*' = Luke xxiii. 46. The quo- 
tation is verbally correct : irapaTlde- 
fiat, not Trapadrjo-ofiaij is certainly 
the right reading. 

1 Dial. c. 101 : Ol Oecopovvres afi- 
tov eaTavpwfx&ov Kal Ke<pa\as 2/ca- 
crros iKivovv Kalrdxefoy oito-rpecpov 
Kal tols fxv^UTTJpo'Lv ev dXXrjXois 
+ diepivovvTes f ZXeyov elpa)vev6p.evoi 
TavTa a Kal ev toTs aTropLvnfxovevfxa(TL 
twv diroaTdXwv avTov ytypairTai. 
Tibv 6eov eavTbv gXeye, KaTa/3ds ire- 
pnraT€LTC*' o~w(rdTCt) avrbv 6 0e6s. The 
account in the Apology (1. 38) appears 
to prove that Justin gives only the 
substance of the Evangelic account: 
liTavpudtPTOS yap avTov i^4<n pe- 



I.] Justin Martyr. 115 

our Gospels, but we do find there others so closely con- chap. ir. 
nected with them that few readers would feel the differ- 
ence. In St Matthew the taunts are : If thou art the Son 
of God come down from the Cross. He trusted on God : 
let Him now deliver Him if He will have Him. No Manu- 
script or Father (so far as we know) has preserved any- 
reading of the passage more closely resembling Justin's 
quotation ; and if it appear not to be deducible from our 
Gospels, due allowance being made for the object which 
he had in view, its source must remain concealed. 

The remaining passage is more, remarkable. While in- Matt. xi. 27 ; 

o r & . . Luke x. 22. 

terpreting the same Psalm xxi. Justin speaks of Christ as 
dwelling in the holy place, as the Praise of Israel, to whom 
the mysterious blessings pronounced in old times to the 
Patriarchs belonged ; and then he adds : ' Yea and it is 
'written in the Gospel that he said : All things have been 
'delivered to me by the Father; and no man knoweth the 
' Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, and 
c those to whom soever the Son shall reveal [the Father and 
Himself] 1 . 9 The last clause occurs again twice in the 
Apology, with the single variation that the verb is an 
aorist (ejvco) and not a present (jlvcoctk€l) 2 . 

There are here three various readings to be noticed. 

<f)Ov ra X € ^V Ka l Zidvovv tcls K€(pa\as ' makes a revelation,' i. e. of His own 

\4yovres' '0 P€Kpoi>s avayelpas pv- nature and of the nature of the Fa- 

o-do-dw eavrov. It is strange that in ther. So I find Augustine takes 

the quotation from the Psalm in the passage : Qucest. Evv. I. i. 
.Dial. 1. c. the words cuaaru) avrbv 2 Ap. I. 63 (bis). Credner (1. 

are omitted, though they are given 248 ff.) insists on the appearance of 

in c. 98. this reading Ifypw, as if it were a 

1 Dial. c. 100 : ko\ h tQ etfcry- mark of the influence of Gnostic 

ye\t(i) 5£ ytypaTTTai eiTrwv [6 Xpt- documents on Justin's narrative. It 

ot6s*] Hdpra fMOL Trapadeborai vwo is a sufficient answer that the read- 

tov Trarpos' /cat oddels yiv&GKti rbv ing is not only found in Marcion and 

TTCLTepa el fMrj 6 vl6s' ovde' tov vlbv the Clementines, but also repeatedly 

el fir) 6 Trarrjp /cat oh &v 6 vlos in Clement of Alexandria and Origen 

airoKa\{>\pri. The last word a-irona- (Griesb. Symb. Crxt. II. 271). Cf. 

\tj\prj, as it has no immediate sub- Semisch, p. 367. 
ject, is I believe equivalent to 

12 



116 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [paet 

chap. ii. ' All things have been delivered to me (irapaZehoTaiY for 
'all things were (aor.) delivered to me (irapeBoOr))'— the 
transposition of the words Father and Son — the phrase 
1 those to whomsoever the Son shall reveal \Him~\ ' for ' he 
'to whomsoever the Son shall please to \_/3ov\r)Tai\ reveal 
[Hirn]\ Of these the first is not found in any other 
authority, but is a common variation 1 ; and the last is 
supported by Clement, Origen, and other Fathers, so that 
it cannot prove anything against Justin's use of the 
Canonical Gospels 2 . 

The transposition of the words still remains ; and how 
little weight can be attached to that will appear upon an 
examination of the various forms in which the text is 
quoted by Fathers like Origen, Irenaeus, and Epiphanius, 
who admitted our Gospels exclusively. It occurs in them, 
as will be seen from the table of readings, with almost 
every possible variation 3 . Irenaeus in the course of one 
chapter quotes the verse first as it stands in the Canon- 
ical text ; then in the same order, but with the last clause 
like Justin's ; and once again altogether as he has given it 4 . 

1 Cf. John vii. 39 : dedo/xivov, reading found in orthodox authori- 
dodev. ties independent of Justin is shewn 

2 Cf. Griesbach, Symb. Crit. I. c. in the following scheme : 

3 The exteDt of the varieties of 

(%yvw \ 

imyu/dbaicei ( Warepa) ri \vios ) (/cat ovdets) \vlou ) 

'[*** ) [KaXfyai. 

] ml " 1 * m ° ™^ KaL x ° h > ea " ° \*™<***v r 

^ om. «* 

Credner (t. p. 249) quotes from authority for such a reading. The 

Irenaeus (iv. 6. 1) ' et cui revelare mistake at least shews how easy it is 

* Pater voluerit,' but I can find no to misquote such a text. 

4 Iren. iv. 6. 1, 7, 3. Nemo cognoscit {p^rem} nisi {tflius} neque 
CPatrem) f quis cog- ) . . f Filius \ , (cui voluerit 1 ™. (revelare \ 
tFilium f \ noscit ( mS1 1 Pater j e 1 quibuscunquef * "™ \ revelaverit) " 

Compare also id. 1. 6. 1. This is the more remarkable since in IV. 6. 1, 



I.] Justin Martyr. 117 

Epiphanius likewise quotes the text seven times in the chap. ii. 
same order as Justin, and four times as it stands in the 
Gospels \ If indeed Justin's quotations were made from 
memory, no transposition could be more natural; and if 
we suppose that he copied the passage directly from 
a Manuscript, there is no difficulty in believing that he 
may have found it so written in a Manuscript of the Ca- 
nonical St Matthew, since the variation is excluded by no 
internal improbability, while it is found elsewhere, and its 
origin is easily explicable 2 . 

If the direct quotations which Justin makes from the (£) Repetitions 

of the same 

Apostolic Memoirs supply no adequate proof that he used variations 
any books different from our Canonical Gospels, it re- canonical 

text. 

mains to be seen whether there be anything in the cha- 
racter of his indefinite references to the substance of the 
Gospels which leads to such a conclusion : whether there 
be any stereotyped variations in his narrative which point 
to a written source; and any crucial coincidences with 
other documents which shew in what direction we must 
look for it. 

It has been remarked already that a false quotation cases when 

J , x the repetition 

may become a tradition. Much more is it likely to re- of * reading 

he attributes the reading of Justin el fir] 6 irar-qp. The reading of the 

to those qui peritiores Apostolis vo- Marcionite interlocutor is apparently 

lunt esse. accepted in the argument. Directly 

1 Semisch, p. 369. e.g. c. Hcer. afterwards however the words are 
II. 2. 43 (p. 766 c); II. 1. 4 (p. given: ovdels ytvucrKeL tov vlbv el 
466 B). /jlij 6 irarrjp, and ovdels olde tov 

2 Semisch has well remarked (p. 366) vlbv. These variations are found, it 
that the word trarpos immediately is to be remembered, in an argument 
preceding may have led to the trans- between Christians. 

position. (/3) Clementines, Horn, xvit. 4 : 

To avoid repetition it may be well ovdels fypu tov iraTepa el /jlt] 6 vlbs, 

to give the passage as it stands in Cos ovde tov vlbv tls oTdev [eldev, 

various heretical books, that Jus- Cred. IJ" el jxr\ 6 • ira.TT)p Kal ols av 

tin's independence of them may be (3ov\7)Tat, [(3ov\eTai, Cred., Cotel.] 

at once evident. o vlbs o\iroKa\v\pa.i.. The text is 

(a) Makcion (Dial. ap. Orig. § 1, repeated in the same words, Horn. 

p. 283): ovdels Zyvw tov waTipa el XVin. 4, 13, 20 (part). The differ- 

fii] 6 vlbs, ovde tov vlbv tls yivwcncei ence of Justin's reading from this 



118 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



CHAP. II. 

becomes 
important. 



The chief 
classes of 
various 
readings 
in MSS. 



appear from association in a writer to whom it has once 
occurred by accident, or been suggested by peculiar influ- 
ences. It must be shewn that there is something in the 
variation in the first instance which excludes the belief 
that it is merely a natural error, before any stress can be 
laid upon the fact of its repetition, which within certain 
limits is even to be expected. Erroneous readings con- 
tinually recur in the works of Fathers who have preserved 
the true text in other passages where for some reason or 
other there seemed to be especial need for accuracy 1 . 
Justin himself has reproduced passages of the LXX. with 
persistent variations, of which no traces can be elsewhere 
found 2 . Unless then it can be made out that the recur- 
rent readings in which he differs from the text of the 
Evangelists, whom he did not profess to quote, are more 
striking or more numerous than those found in the other 
Fathers, and in his own quotations from the Old Testa- 
ment, the fact that there are corresponding variations in 
both cases serves only to shew that he treated the Gospels 
as they did, or as he himself treated the Prophets, and 
not that he was either unacquainted with their existence 
or ignorant of their peculiar claims. 

The real nature of the various readings of Justin's 
quotations will appear more clearly by a comparison with 
those found at present in Manuscripts of the New Testa- 
ment. Errors of quotation often find a parallel in errors 
of copying; and even where they differ in extent they 
frequently coincide in principle. If we exclude mistakes 
in writing, differences in inflexion and orthography, adap- 
tations for ecclesiastical reading, and intentional correc- 



is clear and BtrikiDg. Cf. Recogn. 
II. 47. 

1 See Semisch, pp. 330 sqq. Any 
critical commentary to the New Tes- 
tament will furnish a crowd of in- 
stances. I intended to give a col- 



lection from Griesbach's SymboUe 
Criticce — only from Clement and 
Origen — but it proved too bulky. 

2 e. g. Isai. xlii. 6 sqq. Credner, 
Beitrage, II. pp. 165, 213 sqq. 



!■] 



Justin Martyr. 



119 



i. Synony- 
mous phrases. 



tions, the remaining various readings in the Gospels may chap. 11. 
be divided generally into synonymous words and phrases, 
transpositions, marginal glosses, and combinations of pa- 
rallel passages l . This classification will serve exactly for Justin's 

x ° ° readings to he 

the recurrent variations in Justin ; and as it was made for examined ac- 

1 cording to 

an independent purpose it cannot seem to have been «£ elaStsi fi- 

1 ii. cation, 

suggested by them, however nearly it explains their 
origin. 

In the first group of passages which Justin quotes in 
his Apology from the ' Precepts of Christ' he says : ' Now 

* concerning our affection (o-ripyeiv) for all men He taught 

'this: If ye love them which love you what strange thing First instance. 

* do ye? for the fornicators do this... And to the end that 
'we should communicate to those who need... He said: 
' Give to everyone that asketh, and from him that would 

* borrow turn ye not away ; for if ye lend to them of 

* whom ye hope to receive, what strange thing do ye? this 
' even the publicans doV The whole form of the quota- 
tion, the context, the intertexture of the words of St 
Matthew and St Luke, shew that the quotation is made 
from memory. How then are we to regard the repetition 



1 This classification is given by 
Schulz in his third edition of the 
first volume of Griesbach's New 
Testament, pp. xxxviii. sqq. He 
has illustrated each class by a series 
of examples, which may be well com- 
pared with Justin's quotations. 

2 Ap. I. 15: Hep! de rod o-rip- 
yeiv airavras ravra idida^ew Ei dya- 
irare rovs ayairuvras v/m&s, rl kcli- 
vbv iroieire; (riva fiicrdbu £x €T€ 5 
Mt. void vjxtv xdpu iffrlv ; Lc.) 
Kai yap ol vbpvoi {ol rekdvaL 
Mt. ol ajuapruXol Lc.) rovro ttolov- 
clv (Luke vi. 32 ; Matt. v. 46)... Eij 
82 rb KOivuveiv rots Seopiivots kolI 
firjdfr irpbs db£av voieiv ravra 2<pTj' 
Havrl r(£ alrovvri. dido re (56 s Mt. 
SLdov Lc.) Kal rbv f3ov\bfievov 
(deKovra Mt.) oavdaavdai firj awo- 



o-rpad)ijr€ (-77s Mt. the text of Lc. 
is here quite different). Et yap 
daveifere irap* wv iXTri^ere \a{3€Li>, 
ri Kawbv iroie'tre', {Mt. omits this 
clause : Lc. ut supra) Tovro Kal ol 
rekCjvai ttolovgiv (Matt. v. 42 ; Luke 
vi. 30, 34). In all the quotations 
from Justin I have marked the va- 
riations from the text of the Gospels 
b}' Roman letters in the Italicised 
translation, and in the original by 
spaced letters. If there appear to be 
any fair MS. authority for a reading 
which Justin gives I have not no- 
ticed it, unless it be of grave impor- 
tance. For instance in the second 
passage \afieiv is read for diroXa^eiv 
by X B L ; and in the first rovro 
for rb avrb by good Greek and (espe- 
cially) Latin authorities. 



120 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [paet 



chap. II. 



Second in- 
stance. 
Matt. vii. 15. 



of the phrase 'what strange thing do ye T The correspond- 
ing words in St Luke in both cases are what thank have 
ye ? in St Matthew, who has only the first passage, what 
reward have ye ? This very diversity might occasion the 
new turn which Justin gives to the sentence ; and the last 
words point to its source in the text of St Matthew : If 
ye love them which love you, what reward have ye ? Do 
not even the publicans the same ? And if ye salute your 
brethren only what remarkable thing do ye ? Do not even 
the heathen so 1 ? The change of the word (tcaivbs for wepta- 
0-09) which alone remains to be explained — if indeed it were 
not suggested by the common idiom 2 — falls in with the 
peculiar object of Justin's argument, who wished to shew 
the reformation wrought in men by Christ's teaching. 
The repetition of the phrase in two passages closely con- 
nected was almost inevitable. 

The recurrent readings in Justin offer another instance 
of the substitution of a synonymous phrase for the true 
text. He quotes our Lord as saying : ' Many shall come 
* in my name clothed without in sheep-skins but being- in- 
'wardly ravening wolves 3 ' This quotation again is evi- 
dently a combination of two passages of St Matthew, and 



1 Matt. v. 47: ri irepiaabv TroieTre; 
In this verse we must read edvLKol 
for reXQvai, but reX&vai is undoubt- 
edly the right reading in the corre- 
sponding clause in ver. 46, and thus 
the connexion of the words is scarcely 
less striking than before. At the 
same time Justin may have read 
reX&vai' the verse is not quoted by 
Clement, Origen, or Irenaeus. 

2 The phrase Kaivbv iroieTu occurs 
in Plato, Resp. in. 399 e. It is pos- 
sible that TrepLcrabv woieiv may be 
found elsewhere, but I doubt whether 
it would be used in the same sense ; 
irepiaaa irpdaareiv has a meaning 
altogether different. 

3 Dial. c. 35 {Ap. 1. 16): UoXXol 



iXeiscrovTai (rf^ovcut Ap.) Ctrl t<$ 6v6- 
/marl /ulov <-£(ty0ei>' (+ jjl& -Ap-) *v- 
dedvpL^vot dip/xara TrpofBdrcov, 
$(TuQev 5e elai (owes Ap.) Xvkoi 
dpTT ayes (Matt. xxiv. 5 ; vii. 15). 
Immediately below (Dial. i. e.) Justin 
quotes, UpO(rix €T€ a7r ° r & v favdo- 
irpocpyfTCovQiTLves eXiVGOvrai (Zpxov- 
rat Mt.) -rrpos vpias I£co0e*>, k.t.X. 
(Matt. vii. 15 : iv evdvpiaori 7rpo- 
pdruv). The phrase eydvpiaai irpo- 
fidTcov is very strange, and though 
there is apparently no variation in 
the MSS. UppLCUJL has been conjec- 
tured. Cf. Schula, in I. Semisch 
has remarked that evdedvp.e'poi dep- 
fiara shews traces of the text of St 
Matthew (p. 340). 



I.] Justin Martyr. 121 

made from memory. The longer expression in Justin chap. ii. 
reads like a paraphrase of the words in the Gospel, and is 
illustrated by the single reference made to the verse by 
Clement, who speaks of the Prophetic Word as describing 
some men under the image of wolves arrayed in sheep s 
fleeces 1 . If Clement allowed himself this license in quot- 
ing the passages, surely it cannot be denied to Justin. 

In close connexion with these various readino\s is Another 
another passage in which Justin substitutes a special for 
a general word, and replaces a longer and more unusual 
enumeration of persons by a short and common one. 
1 Christ cried aloud before He was crucified, The Son of 
'Man mast suffer many things and be rejected by (vrro) 
'the scribes and Pharisees and be crucified and on the 
'third day rise again 2 .' In another place the same words 
occur with the transposition of the titles e ...by the Phari- 
' sees and scribes.' Once again the text is given obliquely : 
' Christ said that He must suffer many things of {airo) the 
'scribes and Pharisees and be crucified../ In this last 
instance the same preposition is used as in St Luke, and 
the two variations only remain constant — ' scribes and 
c Pharisees ' for t elders and chief priests and scribes,' and 
' crucified' for 'put to death 3 .' Though these readings are 
not supported by any Manuscript authority, they are suffi- 
ciently explained by other Patristic quotations. The ex- 
ample of Origen shews the natural difficulty of recalling 

1 Clem. Al. Protr. § 4 : \vkol ku>- 3 In Matt. xvi. 21 iradeiv vwb is 
5loLS irpoficLTuv 7)fjL(pLea/JL€voi. read by D; in Mark viii. 31 it is 

2 Dial. c. 76 : 'E t 36a yap irpb tov supported by X B C D (which how- 
aravpudrivai' Ae? tov vlbv tov dv- ever proceeds Kal airb tujv dpx-), dfcd 
dpwirov iroWa iradelv Kal dirodoKi- and must be received into the text : 
/naadrjvaL vtto (airb Lc.) twv ypafx- in Luke ix. 22 dwb is the reading of 
fj,aT€U)i> Kal Qapto-aluv (7rpeo-{3v- the majority of the MSS. From 
Tepujv Kal apxtepeuv Kal ypa/ifxaTeuu this note it will appear how little 
Lc.) Kal o~Tavpudri.vaL {d-rroKTavdi)- weight could be rested on the read- 
vai Lc.) Kal Tr} Tplrrj ijfjLepa dvao~T7jvai. ing virb in Justin, even if it were 
Cf. cc. 100; 51 : Luke ix. 22. constant. 



122 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. ii. the exact words of such a passage. At one time he writes 
The Son of Man must be rejected of (airo) the chief priests 
and elders . . . ; again . . . of the chief priests and Pharisees 
and scribes . . . ; again . . . of the elders and chief priests 
and scribes of the people \ In corresponding texts a simi- 
lar confusion occurs both in manuscripts and quotations 2 . 

Lukexxiv. 7 . The second variation is still less remarkable. Even in a 
later passage of St Luke the word ' crucified ' is substituted 
for 'put to death/ and Irenseus twice repeats the same 
reading. From that time He began to shew to His disci- 
ples that He most go to Jerusalem and suffer many things 
from the priests and be rejected and crucified and 
the third day rise again 3 . The Son of Man must suffer 
many things and be rejected and crucified and the third 
day rise again 4 . It is scarcely too much to say that both 
these passages differ more from the original text than 
Justin's quotations, and have more important common 
variations; and yet no one will maintain that Irenseus 
was unacquainted with our Gospels, or used other records 
of Christ's life. 

Another quotation of Justin's which may be classed 
under this same division is more instructive, as it shews 
the process by which these various readings were stereo- 
typed. Prayer for enemies might well seem the most 
noble characteristic of Christian morality. ' Christ taught 
' us to pray even for our enemies, saying Be ye kind and 
'merciful, even as is your heavenly Father 5 ' 'We who 
' used to hate one another . . . now pray for our enemies 6 . . . ' 



A last in- 
stance shew- 
ing how the 
change was 
stereotyped. 



1 Griesbach, Symb. Crit. p. 291. 

2 See the various readings to Matt, 
xxvi. 3, 59; xxvii. 41. 

3 Iren. 111. 18. 4: Ex eo enim, 
inquit, coepit demonstrare discentibus 
(to his disciples) quoniam oportet 
ilium Hierosolymam ire et multa 
paii a sacerdotibus et reprobari et 
crucifigi et tertia die resurgere (Matt. 



xvi. 21 ; Luke ix. 22). The words el 
reprobari form no part of the text 
of St Matthew, 

4 Id. III. 16. 5: Oportet enim, in- 
quit, Filium hominis multa paii et 
reprobari et crucifigi et die tertio re- 
surgere (Luke ix. 22). 

5 Dial. c. 96. 

6 Ap. I. 14. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 123 

The phrase as well as the idea was fixed in Justin's mind; chap, il 
and is it then strange that he quotes our Lord's teaching 
on the love of enemies elsewhere in this form : Pray for 
your enemies, and love them that hate you, and bless them 
that curse you, and pray for them that despite/idly use 
you 1 ? The repetition of the key-word pray points to the 
origin of the change; and the form and context of the 
quotation shew that it was not made directly from any 
written source. But here again there are considerable 
variations in the readings of the passage. In St Matthew 
it should stand thus: Love your enemies, and pray for 
them that persecute you. The remaining clauses appear to 
have been interpolated from St Luke. Origen quotes the 
text in this shorter form five times; and in the two re- 
maining quotations he only substitutes them that despite- 
fully use you from St Luke for them that persecute you in 
the last clause 2 . Irenseus gives the precept in another 
shape: ( Love your enemies, and pray for them that hate 
'you 3 .' Still more in accordance with Justin's citations 
Tertulliaa says, 'It. is enjoined on us to pray to God for 
'our enemies, and to bless our persecutors*? It would be 
useless to extend the inquiry further. 

Transpositions are perhaps less likely to recur than 2 - £™] sp08i ~ 
new forms of expression; at least I have not noticed any 
repeated in Justin. One or two examples however shew 3. Glosses. 
the nature of a large class of glosses. Every scholar is 2?#2^ 
familiar with what may be called the prophetic use of the senttcn * c - 

1 A p. I. 15: T&tixevdevirhp tQv 2 Griesbach, Symb. Crit. II. pp. 

ixOp&v vfiQu /cat dyairare rovs 2£3sq. 

fjaaovpras v/J.as ydyairdre rovs €%- d c. Hcer. III. 18. 5 : Dihgde ini- 

dpovs vfAuv, kclXlos ttol€7t€ tols jjnaov- micos vestros et orate pro eis qui vos 

(jlv vfxas Lc.) kcl\ (om. Lc.) €v\oye'iT€ oderunt. 

rovs KaTapwfxfrovs vfMiv kclI evx^cde 4 Ap. 31: Praeceptum est nobis 

(irpoaevx^o'de ML, and Lc. omitting ad redimdantiam benignitatis etiam 

Kai) virkp (irepi Lc.) rQv i-rrripeafov- pro itiimicis Deum orarc et perse- 

rojv vfxas (Luke vi. 27, 28. Cf. Matt. cutoribus nostris bona precari. 
v. 44)- 



121 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [paet 



chap. ii. present tense. In the intuition of the seer the future is 
already realized, not completely but inceptively : the action 
is seen to be already begun in the working of the causes 
which lead to its accomplishment. This is the deepest 
view of futurity, which regards it as the outgrowth of the 
present. But more frequently we break the connexion: 
future things are merely things separated by years or 
ages from ourselves ; and this simple notion has a tendency 
to destroy the truer one. It is not then surprising that 
both in Manuscripts and quotations the clearly defined 
future is confounded with the subtler present. Even in 
parallel passages of the Synoptic Gospels the change is 
sometimes found, being due to a slight alteration of the 
instance of point of sight 1 . The most important instance in Justin 
uonlfitln a ~ occurs in his account of the testimony of John the Baptist : 
I indeed am baptizing you with water unto repentance; 
but He that is mightier than I will come whose shoes I am 
not worthy to bear; He will baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost and fire 2 . . . ' The whole quotation except the clause 
in question and the repetition of a pronoun agrees verbally 
with the text of St Matthew. This is the more remark- 
able because Clement gives the passage in a form differing 
from all the Evangelists 3 , and Origen has quoted it with 
repeated variations, even after expressly comparing the 



1 Matt. xxiv. 40; Luke xvii. 34 
-(where however irapa\afjL(3dveTai and 
dcpierac are read by DEL &c. though 
they retain the futures in ver. 35). 
Compare John xxi. 18, where D 
gives a present instead of oltrei. Cf. 
Winer, N. T. Grammatik, § 40. 2. a 
(ed. 6). 

2 Dial. c. 49 (Cf. c. 88) : 'Eyd; 
Hev v/ul&s fiaiTTLfa ev vbari els fierd- 
voiav rj^et bh (yap c. 88) 6 lo~xvpo- 
repbs fjiov (6 d£ dirlvw fiov epx^jaevos 
laxvpoTepds fiov eariv Mt. fyxercu bk 
6 lo~x v P° T€ P°s pov Lc.) ov oHk elpa 



lKavbs...TTVpi ov to imuov afir ov (om. 
Mt, Lc.) ev rfj %• ..d<TJ3e'o'Tcp (Matt. iii. 
11, 12; Luke iii. 16, 17). For the 
insertion of avrov compare Mark vii. 
25 (K DA however omit the pronoun); 
Apoc. vii. 2. See Winer, § 22. 4. b. 
3 Clem. Alex. Fragm. § 25: eyCo 
fih vfi as v5 art fiairrlfa, fpxerai 
be fjiov oiria-w 6 pairrl£wv iV-ias iv 
TrvevjULari Kal irvpi...rb yap tttijov ev 
rfj x €l P L o-vtov T °v biaKadapai ttjv 
d'/W Kal avvd^ei rbv clrov els Ti]v 
diroQi]Kt)v {einQi]Knv Griesb.) to be... 
ao-fito-ru}. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 125 

words of the four Evangelists 1 . The series of changes chap. 11. 
involved in the reading of Justin can be traced exactly. 
In place of the phrase of St Matthew but he that is com- 
ing is mightier than 7... St Mark and St Luke read but 
he that is mightier than I is coining .. . Now elsewhere 
Justin has represented this .very verb is coming by two 
futures in different quotations of the same verse 2 . The 
fact that he uses two words shews that he intended in 
each case to give the sense of the original; and since one 
of them is the same as appears in the words of St John its 
true relation to the text of the Gospels is established. 

The remaining instances of variations which are re- * ComMna- 
peated occur in the combination of parallel texts. In the (a) & words: 
first given the coincidence is only partial : the differences 
of the two quotations from one another are at least as 
great as their common difference from the text of the 
Gospels. Many shall say to me in that clay, — so Justin 
quotes our Lord's words, — Lord, Lord, did we not in Thy 
name eat and drink and prophesy and cast out devils? 
And I will say to them, Depart from me. In the Apology 
the passage runs thus: Many shall say to me, Lord, Lord, 
did we not in Thy name eat and drink and do mighty 
works? And then will L say to them, Depart from me, ye 
workers of iniquity 3 . It so happens that Origen has 

1 Com m. in Joan. xi. 16. Id. vr. \xari ay iip. Cf. Griesb. Si/mb. Crit. 

16: eyCo pairr't^u ev vdari, 6 8e II. 244. who seems to have confound- 

epxofJ-evos fxer^ e jxe iax^porepos fJLov ed the Evangelist and the Baptist. 

€gtlv, avrbs vjjlcLs j3airTL(7€L ev irvev- - Cf . p. 1 20, note 3: Matt. vii. id. 

3 Dial. c. 76: iroWol epovcrt /ulol rrj ijfiepa iKehrj' Kvpie Kvpte ov 

Apol. 1. 16: iroWol epoval fJioc Kvpie Ki'/ne ov 

Matt. vii. 22, 23 : -iroWol epovalv fxoi ev eKeivrj rrj i]/x4pa' Kvpte Kupie ov 

D. T(p o~cp bvopLOLTi ecpdyoiiev Kal eirLopiev Kal TrpdecprjTewaiiev kcll 

A. rip &ip ovopLdTL i(pdyop.ev Kal into/lev 

M. T(p a(p OVOfJLaTl €7rpO(p7)T€V(Ta.fJL€V KO.I Tip (Tip OVOpLCLTt 

D. daipLovLa igepdXo/xev ; K al 

A Kal dvvdfiets eKoi-qaafxev ; Kal 

M. daifiovia e^epdXop.ev sal rip a(p 6v6jj.aTL hwdpLeis woXXas eiroir)o~aiJ.ev ; Kal 



126 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. II. 



(b) of forms. 



quoted the same passage several times with considerable 
variations, but four times he combines the words of St 
Matthew and St Luke as Justin has done. Many shall 
say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not in Thy 
name eat and drink, and in Thy name cast out devils and 
do mighty works'! And I will say to them, Depart from 
me, because ye are workers of unrighteousness 1 . The pa- 
rallel is as complete as can be required, and proves that 
Justin need not have had recourse to any Apocryphal 
book for the text which he has preserved. Id deed the 
very same insertions derived from St Luke xiii. 26, 27, 
are now found in Cureton's Syriac Version. 

Sometimes a combination of different passages consists 
more in the intermixture of forms than of words. Of this 
Justin offers one good example. He twice quotes the woe 
pronounced against the false sanctity of the scribes and 
Pharisees with considerable variations, but in both cases 
preserves one remarkable difference from St Matthew 
whose words he uses. When exclaiming against the frivo- 
lous criticism of the Jewish doctors he asks, ' Shall they 
■ not rightly be called that which our Lord Jesus Christ 
c said to them : Whited sepulchres, without appearing beau- 
'tiful and within full of dead bones, paying tithe of 
'mint but swallowing a camel, blind guides 2 ? Christ 
'seemed no friend to you... when he cried, Woe to you, 



D epu atfrotj 'Ayaxw/oeire dir* 

A. t6t€ epu avToh 'A irox upeire aw 

M. t6t€ ofMoXoyrjcu avToiis 6tl ovdtwore Zyvuv vfias, aicoxup&Tt &"*' 

D. ifxov. 

A. i/jLov ... epydrai rrjs avofilas. 

M. e/xou ol €pya£6fjL€voi ttjv dvofxiav. 

See Luke xiii. 26, 27, from which the words peculiar to Justin's citation 
are derived. 

1 Griesb. Symb. Crit. II. p. 262. KtKoviafxivoi, 2£<adev (paivSfievot 

2 Dial. cc. 112, 17. The passage wpcuot nal Zawdev (eo: dt c. 17) 
common to both runs thus: r depot. ytfiopres 6<tt£uv veicpwv. The cor- 



I.] Justin Martyr. ,127 

' scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of chap. it. 
'mint and rue but regard not the love of God and judg- 
' ment ; ivhited sepulchres, without appearing beautiful but 
' within full of dead bones 1 .' 

False teachers are no longer like to whited sepul- 
chres ; they are very sepulchres. The change is striking. 
If this be explained, the participial form of the sentence 
creates no new difficulty, but follows as a natural sequence. 
The text of St Matthew however offers no trace of its 
origin. There indeed in different authorities three dif- 
ferent expressions of comparison — irapofio Latere, o^oLa^ere, 
ofjLOLoi iare — are found, but none omit it. Clement and 
Irenaeus give the passage with a very remarkable varia- 
tion 2 , but they agree with the Manuscripts in preserving 
the connexion. The Naassenes or Ophites, according to 
the Treatise against Heresies attributed to Hippolytus* 
quoted the saying in a form more similar to that of Justin 
but with an additional change: c Ye are whited tombs, 
'[Christ] says, full within of dead bones! Here the 
passing ^ characteristic is transformed into a substantive 
description. The clue to the solution of the difficulty 
which arises from these various modifications of the Lord's 
saying must be sought for in St Luke. He has not indeed 
a single word in common with Justin, but he has expressed 



responding clause in Matt, xxiii. 27 autem plenum est The passage 

is: 8tl irapo/JLoid^eTc Td<poi$ kckovio.- stands so also in D and d (monumen- 

/xevois otTLves ^udep fikv (paivovrai turn paretur decorum). 

(bpcuoi Zvwdev 5e yefxovcrtv oarkuv 3 [Hipp.] adv. Hcer. V. 8, p. 1 1 ! 

veKp&v kclI irdays aKadapcrlas. For ed. Miller. Tovro, <p7jai^, earl to 

Trapo/jLOLdfere Lachmann reads d/motd- dpy]p.hov Tdcpoi £<tt£ KeKoviajxhoL 

fcre with B. Clement (Griesb. Symb. yt/jLovres, cpTjcrip, tauQev dartuv ve- 

Crit. n. 327) has tifxoiol ecrre (Peed. Kp&v. I may add that though I have 

in. 9. 47). cited this Treatise for convenience 

1 Dial. c. T7. sake under the name of Hippolytus, 

2 Clem. I. c. : tfadev 6 rdepos I am by no means satisfied that the 
(palverai Copalos Zaudev 5£ y^fiet question of its authorship has been 
... Iren. iv. 18. 3: A foris enim finally settled. 

sepulcrum apparet formosum intus 



128 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. the thought — at least according to very weighty evidence 
— in the same manner 1 : Woe to you, for ye are unseen 
tombs, and men ivhen they walk over them know it not. 
Justin has thus clothed the living image of St Luke in 
the language of St Matthew. 
General view These are all the quotations in Justin which exhibit 

of these varia- x 

turns ; any constant variation from the text of the Gospels 2 . In 

the few other cases of recurrent quotations the differences 

between the several texts are at least as important as 

their common divergence from the words of the Evange- 

posMonthaf list 3 . This fact alone is sufficient to shew, that Justin did 

werTgiven™ not exactly reproduce the narrative which he read, but 

from memory, , , . „ n , , , . 

made his references generally by memory, and that in- 
accurately. Under such circumstances the authority of 
the earliest of the Fathers, who are admitted on all sides 
t<5 have made constant and special use of the Gospels, has 
been brought forward to justify the existence and recur- 
rence of variations from the Canonical text ; and though 
it would have been easy to have chosen more striking . 
instances of their various readings, still by taking those 
only which are found in the very passages to which Justin 
also refers the parallel gains in direct force at least as 
much as it seemingly loses in point. 
(b) that they But even if it were not so : if it had seemed that 

fri ma us., recurrent variations could be naturally explained only by 
. supposing that they were derived from an original written 

1 Luke xi. 44: Oval vfjuv Stl £o~re and Versions: Dabd, Syrr., Arm., 
[om. els to] fjLPVfjLeLa [om. r&] ddrjXa JEth., &c. 

koX ol avdpuiroi eir&vw irepLirarovvTes 3 The following passages may be 

ovk OLdao-iv. So D a b c d, Syr. Crt. compared : Dial. c. 96 ; Apol. 1. 

Lucif. ; Griesbach marks the reading 15 = Luke vi. 36 ; Matt. v. 45. For 

as worthy of notice. the repetition of XPV^ T0 ' L ^ai ol/cTlp- 

2 I have not noticed the variation /uoves compare Clem. Strom. II. 59. 
in the reference to Luke x. 16: 6 100: eXert/moves Kal oUripfioves. Dial, 
ejxov aKotiuv d/coi^ei rod airoo~Tei\a.v- c. 101 ; Apol. I. 16 = Matt. xix. 16, 
rbs p.e {Apol. 1. 63. Cf. c. 16), be- 17; Luke xviii. 18, 19. 

cause it is contained in several MSS. 



I] 



Justin Martyr. 



129 



source, that written source might still have been a Manu- chap. ii. 
script of our Gospels. One very remarkable type of a 
class of early Manuscripts has been preserved in the Codex e.g. Codex 
Bezce (D) — the gift of the Reformer to the "University 
of Cambridge — which contains verbal differences from the 
common text, and Apocryphal additions to it, no less 
remarkable than those which we here have to explain 1 . 
The frequent coincidences of the readings of this Manu- 
script with those of Justin must have been observed already ; 
and if it had perished, as it might well have done, in 
the civil wars of France 2 , many citations in Clement and 
Irenaeus would have seemed as strange as his peculiari- 
ties 3 . We are arguing on false premises, but it is none 
the less important to notice that up to this point there 
is nothing in Justin's quotations, supposing them to have 
been drawn immediately from a written source, which 
cannot be explained from what we know of the history of 
the text of our Gospels. 

But it is said that some of Justin's quotations exhibit M Coind- 

± deuces with 

coincidences with fragments of Heretical Gospels, which gl' s et ^ 1 
prove that he must have made use of them, if not exclu- 
sively, at least in addition to the writings of the Evan- 
gelists. 

One such passage has been already considered inciden- Matt. xi. 27 . 
tally 4 , and it has been shewn that the reading which 
Justin gives appears elsewhere in Catholic writers; and 



1 See Note C at the end of the Luke xii. n. <pepw(ru>. Clem. Or. 



Section. 

8 Initio belli civilis apud Gallos 
an. MDLXII. ex ccenobio S. Ire- 
nsei Lugduni postquam ibi diu in 
pulvere jacuisset nactus est Beza... 
Mill. Proley. N. T, 1268. 

3 The following examples will 
serve to confirm the statement : 

Matt, xxiii. 26. i^dev ..Clem. 
Peed. in. 9. 48; Iren. iv. 18. 3. 



(Griesb. Symb. Crit. 11. 377). 

Luke xii. 27. ovre prjdei oiire 
vcpalvei. Clem. Peed. 11. 

Luke xii. 38. ry evirepivr) <pv\anfj. 
Iren. v. 34. 2. ' 

Luke xix. 26. irpoGTldeTai. Clem. 
Strom. VII. to, irpoaTidrjaerai. 

Cf. Hug, Introduction, I. § 22. 
It is needless to multiply instances. 

4 Cf. p. 116,11. 3. 



130 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. that in fact it may exhibit the original text. The remain- 
ing instances are neither many nor of great weight. The 
most important of them is the reference to our Lord's dis- 
John in. 3 , 5 . course with Nicodemus 1 : 'For Christ said Except ye be 
'born again (avayevvrjdfjre) ye shall not enter into the 
'kingdom of heaven. But that it is impossible for those 
' who have been once born to enter into their mothers ivomb 
'is clear to all 2 .' In the Clementines the passage reads: 
'Thus sware our Prophet to us, saying Verily I say 'unto 
'you, except ye be born again (dvayevvndPjre) with living 
' water into the name of the Father, Son, [and] Holy Spirit, 
'ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven 3 / Both quo- 
tations differ from St John in the use of the plural, in the 
word descriptive of the new birth, and in the phrase ye 
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven instead of he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God ; but their variations 
from one another are not less striking, for the introduc- 
tion of the phrase 'living water' and of the baptismal for- 
mula in the Homily is the most significant part of its 
variation from the text of St John. 

If the familiar use of one phrase were in all cases a 
sufficient explanation of its substitution for another which 

1 Cf. Semisch, § 25, pp. 189 fF. 3 (Schwegler, 1. p. 218). CLRecog.vi. 

2 Ap. I. 61 : kclI yap 6 'Kptarbs 9 : Sic enim nobis cum Sacramento 
elirev "Ai> fxr] avayevvr\B7\Te, ov verus propheta testatus est dicens : 
jj.7} ela^XOrjre els ttjv ^aaCkelav t(ov Amen dico vobis, nisi quis denuo re- 
ovpavCov. "On 5£ /cat ddvvarov els natus fuerit (dvayevvrjBrj avudev) ex 
ras juLrjTpas tCjv reKovadv rovs aqua, non introibit in regna codorum. 
aira% f yevojxivovs €fA(3i}vai (pavepbv The natural confusion of the con- 
irdcrlv ecm. tents of the third and fifth verses in 

3 Horn. XI. 26: ovtojs yap 7]fxiv St John's record which is already 
dopLoaev 6 irpo(p7]Trjs elirwv' 'A/ultjp seen in the passages quoted (born 
( + dfiT]u Joh.) vpuu \4yco (\. (ToiJoh.) again, v. 3; enter, v. 5) is made still 
eav pLT] dvay evv rj 6 9} re (tls yewqdrj more puzzling by the reading of Cod. 
Joh.) vdari ^Covtl, els 6vop,a ira- Slnait. in v. 5, eav /jltj tig e£ vdaroc 
rpbs, viov, dylov irvev pharos, ov K ai^v7 yevvrjdT) ovdvvarai ecdeiv r V v 
fir) elaiKdrjTe (ov dvvarai elaeXdelv p a <n\iav tojv ovpavuv. The use of dva- 
Joh.) els tt)v fiaaCKeiav tQv ovpa- y€vvrje7jTe seems tome to point cer- 
vuv (rov OeovJoh.). See Matt, xviii. tainlytothe yevvrjeijvai dvcodev of v.3. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 131 

is more strange, there would be little difficulty here. The chap. ii. 
whole class of words relative to the New Birth (dvayevva- 
affat, dvayevvr](TL<;) formed a part of the common technical 
language of Christians, and they occur repeatedly both in 
Justin and in the Clementines 1 . The .phrase in the 
Gospel (yevvrj07Jvac uvcoOev) on the other hand is not only 
peculiar but ambiguous. Nor is this all: the passage as 
quoted in both cases is put in the form of a general address. 
If then the general formula was thus adapted from the 
Evangelist, one change might furnish occasion for the 
others. And it is not to be overlooked that Ephraem 
Syrus has given the words in a form which combines in 
equal proportions the peculiarities of St John and Justin 2 : 
1 Except a man be born again from above (ava<yevvrj6f) avoo- 
' 6ev) he shall not see the kingdom of heaven/ So also in 
the Apostolical Constitutions the words are quoted thus: 
s The Lord says Except a man be born (yevvrjOfj) of water 
'and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven*! 
If these parallels are not sufficient to shew that the quota- 
tion of Justin is merely a reminiscence of St John, at Coincidence* 

, A w *th Apocry- 

least they indicate that it was not derived from any Apo- phai Gospel* 

J \ x no proof of 

cryphal Gospel, but rather from some such tradition ot their u*e* 
our Lord's words as has preserved peculiar types of other 
texts*. Apocryphal Gospels were in fact only unauthorized 

1 The earliest examples of this v&v. For yevvrjdfj the common read- 
Christian use of the words are i Pet. ing is (3airTio~dfj, which is probably a 
i. 3, 23: Clem. Horn. vn. 8; XL 26 gloss on yew. e£ v. icai irv. No in- 
(immediately before the quotation) ; stance of pairrifeiv <-k twos occurs to 
xr. 35 : Justin, Ap. 1. 61 : Cf. Cred- me. 

ner,' Beitrage, I. p. 301 f. 4 Schwegler (1. 21S) has pointed 

2 De Pcenit. in. p. 183 (Semisch, out a passage in the Shepherd of Her- 
p. 196): eai> prj ns dvayevvrjOy mas which alludes to the sami tra- 
avudev, ov fMT] l8tj riqv (3ao-(\eLai> r&v ditional saying: Necesse est, in quit 
ovpav&v. See also the reading of [pastor], utper aquam habeant ascen- 
Cod. JSinait. given on p. 130, n. 3. dere ut requiescant. Non poteraiit 

3 Const. Apost. VI. 15 (Semisch, enlm in regnum Dei aider intrare, 
I. c.) : \4yec 6 Kvpios' eav p.rj tls yev- quam ut deponerent mortalitatem 
prjdfj e£ vdaros /cat wvevpLaros, ov p.7] prioris vitae (ill. ix. 16). The coinci- 
dai\dri els tt}i> pao-iKdav tuv ov'pa* dence of the latter clause with St 

K 2 



132 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. collections of such traditionary materials; and it should 
be no matter of surprise if that which was recorded in 
them survived elsewhere as a current story or saying. The 
marvel is that early writers so constantly confined them- 
selves within the circle of the Canonical narratives. 
Matt. v. 34, 37 . The next instance which is quoted as shewing a coin- 
cidence between Justin and the Clementine Gospel illus- 
trates yet more clearly the existence of a traditional as 
well as of an Evangelic form of Christ's words. ' That we 
'should not swear at all, but speak the truth always/ 
Justin says, e Christ thus exhorted us : Swear not at all; 
' but let (eo-Tco) your yea be yea : and your nay nay : but 
1 what is more than these is of the evil one 1 ! In the text 
of St Matthew the corresponding words are I say unto you 
Sivear not at all... but let your speech be Yea yea, Nay nay; 
but what is more than these is of the evil one. It so hap- 
pens however that St James has referred to the same pre- 
cept: Before all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by 
the heaven neither by the earth neither by any other (aWosi) 
oath: but let (i]Tco) your yea be yea and your nay nay 2 ... 
Clement quotes the latter clause in this form as ' a maxim 
' of the Lord 3 ;' and Epiphanius says that the Lord in the 
Gospel commands us 'Not to swear, neither by the heaven nei- 
1 ther by the earth neither by any other (ere post) oath : but let 
' (>)' Tft) ) your yea be yea and your nay nay ; for that which 
. ' is more (TrepiaaoTepov) than these is in its origin (vTrdp^ei) 

John and not with Justin is to be ov oti' to yap k.t.\. 

remarked. 2 James v. 12: Hpb irdvrwv SV, 

1 Apol. I. 16 {Clem. Horn. XIX. 2 ; ddeXcpoi jjlov, jult) dfAvfare fi-qre rbv ou- 

Matt. v. 34, 37) : irepl de rod ptrj c/x- pavbv fjLrjre rr\v yrjv /jlt)T€ dWov rtva 

vvvai oXws T&\T]0r) be Xiyeiv del ov- opKOV rjrio be v/ulujv rb val val 

twj TrapeKeKev'o'aTO' /x\] o/moo-qTe 6'Xws* Kai to ov ov", ha /j.tj virb Kplcriv 

'ecru bk (+ 6X670$ Mt.) vfxQv rb (om. irea-Tjre. 

Mt) valval Kai rb (om. /cat rb Mt.) 3 Strom. V. 14. 100: rb Kvpiov 

ov ov' rb be irepivabv to\jtcov €K tov prfTbv 'eaTOj (not rJTCo) v/jlwv k. t. X. 

Trovrjpov (+ ccttlv Mt, Clem.). Cf. Lib. VII. II. 67, where the sen- 

In Clem. Horn. in. 55 the passage tence is again quoted in a similar 

stands : &7rw v/x&v to val val, r6 form : l<rrat vfiQv k. t. X. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 133 

1 of the evil one\ 9 In the Clementine Homilies the words chap. ii. 
are: '[Our master] counselling us said: Let (earco) your 
'yea be yea and your nay nay; but that which is more than 
' these is of the evil one 2 ' The differences of Epiphanius 
from the text of St Matthew are thus greater than those 
of Justin; and the coincidence of Justin with the Cle- 
mentines is confined to words found in St James, and 
quoted expressly by some Fathers as Christ's words. 

The many various readings of our Lord's words, when Matt. xix. x 7 . 

Mark x 18. 

He limited the true application of the word 'good' to God Lu. win. 19. 
only, are well known. It is recorded in different forms by 
the three Evangelists. Justin himself has quoted the 
passage twice, varying almost every word. It is brought 
forward repeatedly by other Fathers, with constant varia- 
tions from the text of the Gospels. In the presence of 
these facts it would be impossible under any circumstances 
to lay great stress upon the coincidence of a few words in 
one of Justin's quotations w^ith a reading recognized by 
the Marcosians 3 and the Ebionites. Yet the case is made 
still simpler when it is shewn that Catholic authority can 
be adduced for each word in which he agrees with those 
widely different sects. In the Apology the answer is given : 
'To one is good save God alone, who made all things 4 .' In 

1 Epiph. adv. Hcer. I. 20. 6 (i. p. xviii. 19): ovSels ayadbs el fir] ixopos 
44): [tov Kvpiou] ev to) evayyeXluj (efs jfefc, Lc.) 6 (oin. Cod. Sinait.in 
Xeyovros' fj.ri dfxvvvai /jiT/re top ovpavbv Lc.) Geos 6 wocrjaa s r & iraPTa (om. 
/jLT)T€TT]uy7}u fj.r)Te €T € pop Tiva. opKov' Mc, Lc). In St Mark Dd combine 
d\V 77x0; v/jlup to pal pal teal rb the former words, reading /jlopos ets 
ov ofl' to irepicraoTepop yap tov- Qeos. Several other MSS. of the 
tup €K tov wopjjpov vwapx^L. Old Latin give solus (Griesb. I.e.). 

2 Horn. xix. 2 : o-v.ufiovXevup [6 The concluding words occur just 
diSdo-KaXos] etp-rjKep' eGTu vp.£>p to before, and are to be considered as 
valpal Kal to ov ov' to 8£ irepiv- 'an addition of Justin's suggested 
cop tovtojp €K tov iroPTjpov icrTLP. ' by the circumstances of the time 

3 We shall consider in another 'and fiis late controversy with Mar- 
place (Ch. iv. § 8 and note) whether 'cion' (Credner, I. 243). Such a 
the passages quoted by Iremeus concession takes away much of the 
were corrupted by the Marcosians force of Credner's other arguments. 
or simply misinterpreted. If Justin might add a clause to 

4 Ap. 1. J 6 (Mark x. 18; Luke guard against a heresy, surely he 



134 The Age of the Greek Apologists, [part 

chap. ii. the Dialogue: 'Why callest thou me good? One is good, 
'my Father which is in heaven 1 .' The Marcosians read in 
their text: f Why callest thou me good? One is good, the 
' Father in heaven.' In the Clementines the words are : 
1 Call me not good : for the Good is One, the Father which is 
'in heaven 2 ! As to these quotations it is to be noticed 
that Epiphanius has connected the words of St Matthew 
and St Luke in a form similar to that found in the Marco- 
sian Gospel and in Justin 3 . The last clause which is com- 
mon to the three is the only remaining point of difference. 
Now not only are there traces of some addition to the text 
of St Matthew in several versions 4 : not only did Marcion 
and Clement and Origen recognize the words 'the Father 5 ;' 
but in one place Clement gives the whole sentence, 'No one 
' is good except my Father which is in heaven 6 .' He has 
attached the last clause of Justin to the words of St Luke, 
exactly as in Epiphanius we find the last words of St Mat- 
thew added to the opening clauses of Justin. 

might adapt the language of the compared with those given in the 
Evangelists so as best to meet the next note it will be obvious how- 
wants of his readers. little regard w r as paid to exactness 

1 Dial. c. ioi (Marcos, ap. Iren. of quotation in passages which were 
I. 20. i) : ri fie \e7e1s dyadbv (Lc. used very familiarly. 

xviii. 19) ; eh eo~riv ayados (Mt. xix. 4 It may be necessary to notice 

17 6 ay.), 6 irarrjp fxov 6 (om. fjiov 6 that the true text in St Matthew 

.Marcos.) iv roTs ovpavots. xix. 17 is simply ri fxe epojras wept 

2 Horn, xviii. 3: par] /me Xeye rod dyad ov; eh eariv 6 dyadbs. 
dyadbv 6 yap dyadbs eh eariv, 6 5 Marcion read (Epiph. adv. H&r. 
irarr\p 6 £v rols ovpavols. XLTI. p. 315) fx-q /ne \eyere dya- 

3 Epiph. adv. Hair. LXIX. 19 (i. Bbv eh early ayados, 6 Trarrjp. In 
p. 742), 57 (1. p. 780), gives the the refutation (p. 339) his text is 
words as quoted by the Arians: given: jultj fxe \eye dyaOSw eh earlv 
ri fie \eyeis dyadbv (Mc, Lc.) eh ayados, 6 Beds 6 Harrjp. For the 
icrriv ayados (Mt. 6 dy), 6 Beds. He passages of Clement (6 Trarrjp) and 
makes no comment upon the form Origen (6 Qebs 6 Trarrjp) see Griesb. 
of the reading, but in the course of Symb. Crit. 11. pp. 305, 388. 

Lis argument quotes the words him- 6 Peed. I. 8. 72 : Siappr)oi)v \4yei' 

self in the form in which they are ovbels ayados el fxi) 6 rrarrjp fiov 6 

found in St Mark and St Luke ev rots ovpavols. Semisch, p. 372. 

(adv. Hair. lxix. 57, 1. p. 781): ri The passage has been overlooked by 

fxe Xeyecs dyadbv, ovdels ayados el firi Griesbach. 
els, 6 Qebs. If these quotations are 



I] 



Justin Martyr. 



135 



The last instance which is quoted is not more impor- chap. ii. 
tant than those which have been examined 1 . After speak- 
ing of those sons of the kingdom who shall he cast into 
the outer darkness, Justin quotes the condemnation of the 
wicked as pronounced by Christ in these words: 'Go ye 
'into the outer darkness which my Father prepared for 
'Satan and his Angels 2 .' It occurs again in the same form 
in the Clementine Homilies. There are here two varia- 
tions to be noticed — a change in the verb {yira^eiv for 
TropeveaOai), and the substitution of 'the outer darkness' 
for 'the eternal fire.' The first variation occurs elsewhere 3 : 
the naturalness of the second is shewn by the fact that in 
one Manuscript at least of St Matthew the original reading- 
was the outer fire. And more than this: Clement of Alex- 
andria has coupled the two images of 'the fire' and 'the 
outer darkness' in a passage which has a distinct reference 
to the words of St Matthew 4 . 



1 The connexion of Dial. c. 96 
with Horn. ill. 57 (Matt. v. 45") is 
noticed in Note D, p. 155. The 
reference to Luke xi. 52 in Dial. c. 
17, where tcls KXels ex €T€ stands for 
rfpare ttju KXeTda ti)s ywx crews, is very 
different from that in Horn. ni. 18, 
where the phrase is Kparovat. r7]vk\elv. 
. 2 Dial, c 76 ; Clem. Horn. xix. 2 ; 
Matt. xxv. 41: virdyeTe ( + a7r' 
ifJLod Mt.) els to cr kotos {irup 3ft.) 
to e'^uTepov {alwviov Mt.) 6 tjtol- 
jxaaev 6 iraTTjp ( + fxov Mt.) rep era- 
Tava (diafioXu) Mt., Clem.) teal toTs 
dyyeXois avTou. 

'TirdyeTe air' efiov is found in X ; 
and the reading 6 rjToipLaaev 6 TraTrjp 
fMov is supported by D, 2 ross., 
MSS. of Old Lat., and many Fa- 
thers, so that we may suppose that 
it was early current in the Canonical 
Gospel. Irenaeus again once 0111 its 
aw ifiov (HI. 23. 3); in two other 
places it is omitted by some manu- 
scripts (rv. 33. 11 ; 40. 2); in the re- 
maining place it appears to be read 
by all (iv. 28. 2). The omission of 



ol KaTrjpd/iievoL (or rather of KarTj- 
pdfievoL, for the ol is probably spu- 
rious) does not require special no- 
tice. 

3 The old Latin version of Ire- 
nseus has in the first two quotations 
abite, and in the last two disccdite 
(Vulg.). The variation is not no- 
ticed by Lachmann. The words 
tt op. and viz. are confounded in Luke 
viii. 42. 

4 Quis Div. Salv. § 13 (Semisch, 

P- 377)- 

How easily such a passage might 
be altered may be seen from Epi- 
phanius's quotation of the sentence 
of the just: deure ck 5e£iu>v /jlov ol 
ev\oyr)fi^oL ols 6 iraT-qp /ulov 6 ov- 
P&vlos tdero tt\v fiaaiXeiav irpb 
KaraftoXiis koctjulov' eirelvaaa yap teal 
eduKaTe" /hoc <payelv e5i\p7)aa teal ewo- 
TiaaTe fie' yvfiybs nai irepiefidXeTe p.e 
{adv. Hair. lxi. 4). The whole form 
of the blessing is here changed. 

Justin himself has introduced 
'the eternal fire' into his refereuce 
to Matt. xiii. 42, 43, in Ap. 1. 16. 



136 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. It would be easy to shew that the differences of Jus- 

?mien * Justin's tin's quotations from the Gospel-passages in the Clemen- 
thw°inthe d tines are both numerous and striking 1 . Their coincidences 
Clementines. k owever are so f ew anc [ f suc } 1 a character as to lend no 

support to the belief that they belong to a common type. 
A comparison of all the passages which are found in both 
books places their independence beyond a doubt ; but it is 
enough that important variations have been noticed in 
texts which exhibit the strongest resemblances. That the 
Apocryphal Gospels should exhibit points of partial resem- 
blance to quotations made by memory from the written 
Gospels is most natural. They were not mere creations of 
the imagination, but narratives based on the original oral 
Gospel of which the written Gospel was the authoritative 
record. The same cause in both cases might lead to the 
introduction of a common word, a characteristic phrase, a 
supplementary trait. But there was this difference: in 
the one case these changes were limited only by the arbi- 
trary rule of each particular sect; in the other they were 
restrained by an instinctive sense of Catholic truth, vary- 
ing indeed in strength and susceptibility, but related to 
the bare individualism of heresy as the fulness of Scrip- 
ture itself is related to the partial reflections of its teach- 
ing in the writings of a later age. 
( 3 ) coindden- The relation of Justin to the Apocryphal Gospels intro- 

ces of Justin's . . . i • 1 i • t • 

narrative with duces the last objection which we have to notice. It is 

Apocryphal . ° . 

Traditions, said that his quotations differ not only in language but 
also in substance from our Gospels : that he attributes 
sayings to our Lord which they do not contain, and nar- 
rates events which are either not mentioned by the Evan- 
gelists, or recorded by them with serious variations from 
his account. It is enough to answer that he never does 
so when he proposes to quote the Apostolic Memoirs. 

1 See note D at the end of the Section. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 137 

Like other early Fathers tradition had made him familiar chap. ii. 
with some few words of our Lord which are not embodied 
in the Gospels. Like them he may have been acquainted 
with details of His Life treasured up by such as the elder 
of Ephesus 1 who might have heard St John. But what- 
ever use he makes of this knowledge, he never refers to 
the Apostolic Memoirs for anything which is not substan- 
tially found in our Gospels 2 . 

Justin's account of the Baptism, which might seem an bu account of 

Ute Baptism. 

exception to this statement, really confirms and explains 

it. It is well known that there was a belief long current The Voice. 

that the Heavenly Voice addressed our Lord in the words 

of the Psalm which have been ever applied to Him, Thou Ps. ii. 7. 

art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee. Augustine 

mentions the reading as current in his time 3 ; and the 

words are found at present in the Codex Bezae (D) and in 

the Old Latin Version 4 . Justin then might have found 

them in the manuscript of St Luke which he used; but 

the form of his reference is remarkable. When speaking 

of the Temptation he says: 'For the devil, of whom I just 

'now spoke, as soon as [Christ] went up from the river 

'Jordan — when the voice had been addressed to Him 

' Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee — is de- 

s scribed in the Memoirs of the Apostles as having come to 

1 Him and tempted Him so far as to say to Him Worship 

'me 5 .' The words which are definitely quoted form con- 

1 Dial. c. 3: 7ra\cu5s tls irpeo-^v- possit, quid aliud...This, it will be 
rrjs. remembered, is in a critical work ; 

2 All the passages are given above, elsewhere he quotes the words as 
pp. 113 £f. uttered at the Baptism without re- 

3 August, de Cons. Evv. 11. 14: mark: Enchiridion, c. 14. [xlix.] 
Illud vero quod nonnulli codice3 Cf. Lectt. Varr. given in T. VI. p. 
habent secundum Lucam (iii. 22) xxiv. ed. Paris. 1837. 

hoc ilia voce son uisse quod in Psalmo 4 Cf. Griesb. ad Luc. iii. 22. The 

scriptum est Filius meus es tu, ego quotation of the words by Clement 

hodie genui te; quanquam in anti- of Alexandria (P&d. 1. 25) is omit- 

quioribus codicibus gnecis non inve- ted in his Symbolce Critical (11. ?,6$). 
niri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus 5 Dial. c. 103: nal yap ovtos 6 

fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari did(3o\os ap:a ry dua^TJvai avrbv dirb 



138 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [paet 



The Fire kin- 
dled in the 
Jordan. 



chap. ii. fessedly a part of the Evangelic text : it is evident from 
the construction of the sentence that Justin cites no au- 
thority for the disputed clause. 

This apparent mixture of two narratives is still more 
noticeable in the passage in which Justin introduces the 
famous legend of the Fire kindled in Jordan when Christ 
descended into the water. 'When Jesus came to the 
' Jordan where John was baptizing, when He descended to 
' the water both a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and, as 
'the Apostles of Christ Himself recorded, the Holy Spirit 
'as a Dove lighted upon Him 1 .' Here the contrast is 
complete. The witness of the Apostles is claimed for that 
w r hich our Gospels relate; but Justin affirms on his own 
authority a fact which, however beautiful and significant 
in the symbolism of the East, is yet without any support 
from the Canonical history 2 . 



rod worafMoO rod 'lopbdvov rrjs (pwvrjs 
avru) \exOelo"qs Tibs /mou el crv, iyCo 
ar)fjL€pou yeyevvrjKa ae' ev rots airo- 
/j.vn/jLOvev/j.ao'L rCov aTrocrrbXojv yeypa- 

7TTCLL TTpOffeKduiV CLVTU) Kdl 7T€lpdfaj> 

fJ-expi rod elirelv avru) UpoaKvyrjcrbu 
fxoL. The same words are quoted 
again (c. 88) without any reference 
to the Memoirs. 

The words occurred in the Ebion- 
ite Gospel : Epiph. adv. Hcer. xxx. 
13. It is evident however that the 
narrative of the Baptism there given 
is made up from several traditions. 
That which it has in common with 
Justin must have been borrowed 
by both from some third source. Cf. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1. 378 (Ed. 2, 
quoted by Semisch, p. 407, n.). 

1 Dial. c. 88: /cat rbre eXdbvros 
rod 'Irjcrov £ttI rbv 'lopddvrjv irora]xbv 
£vBa 6 'Iwawns efidirrL^e, KareKdbv- 
ros rod 'Irjaov eirl rb vdcop Kal irvp 
dv7](f>dyj €v r<£ *Iop5di>r), kou avadvuros 
avrov dirb rod vdaros cos irepio~repav 
rb oiyiov iri'evfjLa eiwrrrjvai e7r' avrbv 
eypaxpau 61 dirbaroXoi avrov rovrov 
rod Xpi&rov TjfjiQv. The conjectural 



emendation dvr\<$>9ai for avrj<p9T) de- 
stroys the contrast. 

In the Ebionite Gospel (Epiph. 
I. c.) the legend is given differently: 
Cos dvrjXdev dirb rod vdaros rjvoL- 
ynaav ol ovpavoi...Kal evdvs irepi- 
Aa/t^e rbv rbirov <j>Qs fxtya. 
Otto (ad loc.) quotes a passage from 
'aSyriac liturgy' which may indi- 
cate the origin of the tradition : 
Quo tempore adscendit ab aquis sol 
inclinavit radios suos. Justin ap- 
pears to be the only Catholic writer 
who alludes to the appearance; 
unless the words of Juvencus mani- 
festo Dei prwseniia claret also re- 
fer to it. It is however to be ob- 
served that in Manuscripts of the 
Old Latin a g 1 a similar addition 
occurs: el cum baptizaretur (Jesus 
g 1 ) lumen ingens circumfulsit (I. mag- 
num fulgebat g 1 ) de aqua ita ut ti- 
merent omnes qui advenerant (q. con- 
gregati erant g l ). Compare also the 
addition of k to Mark xvi. 4. 

2 The details of the Transfigura- 
tion furnish an illustration of the 
passage. Light is the symbol of 



t] 



Justin Martyr. 



139 



The remairring uncanonical details in Justin are either chap, it 
such facts and words as are known to have been current 'a^^J^ 9 
in tradition, or natural exaggerations, or glosses on the J^jSSiI 
received text generally suggested by some Prophecy of the • 
Old Testament. 

He tells us that ' thos.e who saw Christ's works said Traditional 

Jacts. 

'that they were a magic show; for they dared to call Him 

'a magician and a deceiver of the people 1 .' The Gospels Matt.xii. 24; 

have preserved the simplest form of this blasphemy; and John vii. 12'. 

it survived even to the time of Augustine 2 . Again in 

St Mark our Lord is called the Carpenter. The reading Mark vi. 3. 

indeed was obliterated in the Manuscripts used by Origen, 

for he denied that our Lord 'was ever Himself called a 

'Carpenter in the Gospels current in the Churches 3 ;' but 

it is supported by almost all the authorities at present 

existing. The same pride or mistaken reverence which 

removed the word suppressed the tradition which it 

favoured; but it is characteristic of the earliest age that 

Justin speaks of 'the Carpenters works which Christ 

1 wrought when among men, ploughs and yokes, by these 

' both teaching the emblems of righteousness and [enforc- 

'ing] an active life 4 .' 

In addition to these details Justin has recorded two Traditional 

gaffing*. 

sayings of our Lord not found in the Gospels. ' Our Lord 



G-od'3 dwelling-place ; Exod. xiv. 
20 ; 1 Kings viii. 1 1 ; i Tim. vi. 1 6. 
Light is the outward mark of spe- 
cial converse with him ; Exod. xxxiv. 

30, 

1 Dial. c. 69 : ol b*k Kai ravra 

opQvres yu>6[A€va (pavracriav fiayiK^v 

yiveadai e\eyov Kai yap fxdyop eivai. 

avrbv iroXiiuv Xeyeiv Kai XaoTrXdvov. 

Cf. Ap. 1. 30, and Otto's notes. 

3 Augus:. de Cons. Eir. 1. 9: 
Christum propterea sapientissimuru 
putant fuisse quia nescio quae illicita 
noverat... 

3 c. Cels. XI. 36: ovdafiov rwv iv 



rats €KK\Tjo~lais cpepo^ivoiv evayyeXLuv 
T€Ktuv avrbs 6 'Irjcrovs avayiypairrai.. 
4 Dial. c. 88: ravra yap ra tck- 
toplkcl epya elpyd^ero iv avdpuwois 
wv dporpa Kai ivy a, 5ia rovrtov Kai 
ra rrjs diKaic&vwns crvfj.3o\a 8idd(TK(av 
Kai fevepyij fiicv. Otto refers to the 
Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (c 
and to the Gospel of Thomas (c. 13) 
for similar traditions. The latter 
narrative (ewoUi dporpa Kai frv- 
yovs, said of Joseph) shews a re- 
markable coincidence of language 
with Justin. 



140 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. ' Jesus Christ said: In whatsoever I find you, in this will 
'I also judge you 1 .' Clement of Alexandria has quoted 
the same sentence with slight variations, but without any 
distinct reference to its source 2 . In later times it was 
attributed to Ezekiel, or some Prophet of the Old Testa- 
ment 3 ; and though it was widely current, there is no evi- 
dence to shew that it was contained in any Apocryphal 
Gospel. It may have been contained in the Gospel ac- 
cording to the Hebrews*; but even if it were so, the tradi- 
tion must have existed before the record, and may have 
survived independently of it. The same holds true of the 
other phrase, ' Christ said : There shall be schisms and 
'heresies 5 / If it were not for the mode in which Justin 
quotes them, the words might seem a short summary of 
our Lord's warnings against the false teachers and false 
Matt. vii. 15; prophets who should deceive many. In the Clementines 
the two prophecies are intermixed : * There shall be, as the 
' Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, lusts of 
'rule 6 .' Lactantius also affirms that 'both Christ Him- 
'self and His ambassadors foretold that many sects and 
' heresies would arise. . . V 

1 Dial. c. 47: 6 Tj/jLtrepos Kvptos in Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22), 
'Irjaovs Xpiarbs elirev 'Ev 01s av in Justin (I. c. av a <jtt\ <tout at 7ro\- 
vfjids KaTaXdftu iv toijtois kclI KpivQ. \ol \f/€u56xpio" r o'' kcu \pev8air6- 
Cf. Otto, in loc. <tto\ol kclI iroWofa tQv ttmjtCjv 

2 Clem. Quis Div. Salv. § 40. TrXa^o-ouo-t^inTertullian (dePrccscr. 

3 Semisch, p. 394. Hozret. c. 4 quoted by Otto), and in 

4 Cf. Credner, Beitrage, I. 247. other authors ; so that it may point 
Introduction to the Study of the Go- to some traditional version of our 
spels, App. C. p. 426. Lord's words. Cf. Semisch, p. 391, 

5 Dial. c. 35: dire y ap...2<r out at anm. 
(TXtV/x-ara ko\ alpfoeis. Cf. 1 Cor. 7 Inst. Div. iv. 30 (Semisch, p. 
xi. 18, 19. The passage is qupted 393): Ante omnia scire nos convenit 
by Justin between Matt. xxiv. 5 et ipsum et legatos ejus prasdixisse 
(comp. vii. 15) and Matt. vii. 15, quod plurimae sectse et haereses ha- 
and distinguished from them. berent existere qune concordiam. 

6 Bom. xvi. 11: tvovrai yap, ws sancti corporis rumperent. Cf. Ter- 
6 Kupios el-rrev, TpevSairdcrToXoi, tull. I. c. where the passage is appa- 
ipevdeis irpcxpTJrai, cup&ras, <j>i\apxi<u. rently referred to the text of St 
The word \f/€v5air6<TTo\ot occurs Paul, 
likewise in St Paul (2 Cor. xi. 13), 



xxiv. 5. 



I] 



Justin Martyr. 



141 



Elsewhere Justin generalizes the statements of the chap. ir. 
Gospels with what may seem natural exaggerations. ' He- Exaggeration*. 
( rod/ he says, ' commanded all the male children in Beth- 
'lehem to be slain without exception 1 ;' yet he states in 
another place with more exactness that ' Herod slew all 
'the male children who were born in Bethlehem about 
' the time of Christ's birth 2 / Again, when speaking of 
the calumnies of the Jews about the Resurrection, Justin 
not only gives the origin of the story as St Matthew does, 
but adds ' that they chose out men whom they sent into 
'the whole world to announce the rise of a godless and 
'lawless sect 3 / a statement which explains the character 
of Christianity recorded in the Acts that it is everywhere Acts xxviiL 22 . 
spoken against. 

More frequently he adds an interpretation to the text Glosses: 
which he quotes ; as when he says that Joseph ' was of 
' Bethlehem/ as though that were his native village, but 
Nazareth only his dwelling-place 4 ; or when he speaks of 
'the Magi from Arabia 5 .' And this very commonly hap-^.^/^. 
pens when the gloss is suggested by a Prophecy. Thus cies - 
he alludes to the cave in which our Lord was born, because 
Isaiah had said He shall dwell in a high cave of a strong ls j^^ l[ ' l6 * 
rock 6 . He speaks of the Star which rose in heaven, not 
mentioning the East 1 , apparently because our Lord Him- gj"yj '*• 
self is described as the Day-spring (dvaroXrj), the Star of 
Jacob. He tells us that the foal of the ass on which our 



1 Dial. c. 78 : iravras dirXQs robs 
TraWas tovs ev BrjOXe^fi eKiXevaev du- 
aLpedrjvai. 

2 Dial. c. 103 : ['HpcoSou] dveXbv- 
ros irdvTas tovs kv "BijdXeepL eKeivov 
rod KaLpov yevvrjdevTas iraidas. Ori- 
gen quotes the passage with some 
variations: iravra tcl 7rat5ta dvel- 
Xe ret iv B-ndXeea /ecu kv (= 7racrt) 
rots bpiois avrrjs dirb dierovs k.t.X. 
Comm. in Matt, xvii. 11. 

3 Dial. a 108: dvdpas x €L P 0T0P V' 



o-avres ckXcktovs els traeav tt\v 
OLKOVfMiurju eire/mx/saTe nypw govt as 
6'rt atpecris rts dOeos /cat dvoiAos eyr)- 
yeprai dirb 'I^croO twos TaXiXaLov 
7rXdvov... 

4 Dial. c. 78 : diroypacpys ovenjs ev 
Trj 'IovSata rore TrpuTTjs eiri KvprjvLov 
dveXyXudeL dirb Nafc^r e*vQa tpK€t 
els BTjdXetjJL odev ijp dvaypd^acdaL. 

5 Dial. 1. c. and c. 106. 

6 Cf. p. 88, note 7. 

7 Dial. c. 106 ; 78. 



142 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. II. 

Gen. xlix. n. 



Ps. xxii. ii. 



Isai. Iviii. 2. 
LXX. 



Zech. xiii. 7. 
Mt. xxvi. 31. 
Is. liii. 



Recapitula- 
tion. 



The essential 
character of 
Justin's quo- 
tations. 



Lord entered into Jerusalem was bound to a vine, as it 
was said of Judah that he bound his foal unto the vine 1 : — 
that ' there was no one not even one at hand to help Him 
e [when betrayed] as being without sin/ even as David 
had prophesied in the Psalm 2 : — that the Jews when they 
mocked Him 'placed Him on a judgment-seat and said 
' Judge for us/ as Isaiah had complained, ■ they ask of me 
1 now judgment*:' — that 'His disciples who were with Him 
'were scattered till He arose 4 / — that ' all His acquaint- 
€ ance departed from Him and denied Him 5 / referring to 
the prophecy of Zechariah quoted by St Matthew, and the 
picture of Christ's sufferings and loneliness in Isaiah. 

Such is the analysis of Justin's quotations from the 
Memoirs of the Apostles, of his various readings in Evan- 
gelic phrases, of his Apocryphal additions to the Gospel 
history. The process is long, but a full examination of 
all the passages in question is the best -answer to objec- 
tions which appear strong because isolated instances are 
taken as types of general laws ; and the result to which 
it necessarily leads is full of strength and satisfaction for 
those who feel that the Catholic Church cannot have 
arisen from a mere fusion of discordant elements at the 
end of the second century, and who still look anxiously 
and candidly into every document and every fact which 
marks the characteristics of its form and the stages of its 
growth. The details of Justin's quotations shew us some- 
thing of the manner in which the Scriptures, and espe- 
cially the Gospels, were used by the first Christian teach- 
ers, something of the variations which existed in different 
copies (of which other traces still remain), something of 
the extent and character of the oral records of Christ's 



1 Ap. 1. 32. Justin interprets the 2 Dial. c. 103. 

prophecy in the same way in Dial. 3 Ap. I. 35. 

c. 53, without affirming this parti- 4 Dial. c. 53. 

cular. 5 A p. I. 50. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 143 

life ; but they afford no ground for the belief that the chap, ii. 
Memoirs were anything but the Synoptic Gospels which Xo trace in 
we have, and they exhibit no trace of the use of any other use .0} any 
Evangelic records. Justin lived at the period of transition ment other 
from a traditional to a written Gospel, and his testimony Gospels. 
is exactly fitted to the position which he held. He refers 
to books, but more frequently he appears to bring forward 
words which were currently circulated rather than what 
he had privately read. In both respects his witness to 
our Gospels is most important. For it has been shewn 
that his definite quotations from the Memoirs are so ex- 
actly accordant with the text of the Synoptists as it stands 
now, or as it was read at the close of the second century, 
that there can be no doubt that he was as well familiar 
with their writings as with the facts related in them. 
And the wide and minute agreement of his notices of 
the life and teaching of our Lord with what they record 
of it proves that his knowledge of the Gospel history was 
derived from a tradition which they had moulded and 
controlled, if not from the habitual and exclusive use of 
the books themselves 1 . 

His coincidences with Heretical or Apocryphal narra- 
tives have been proved to be not peculiar to him, but 
fragments of a wide spread recension of the Canonical text. 
His simpler divergences from the received text have been 
illustrated by parallel examples of his quotations from the 
Septuagint and by recognized various readings in other 
authorities. 

1 The relation between Justin's hibit the narrative in the simplest 

quotations and our Gospels is so in- form. At the same time it is evi- 

tiniate that they cannot have been dent that the original oral Gospel 

independent. The only alternative, could not have been so long preserv- 

namely that the Synoptic Gospels ed in its essentiiil purity without 

embodied the oral Gospel as it was the counter-check of written Gos- 

current in Justin's time, apart from pels. The tradition and the record 

historical considerations, is excluded mutually illustrate and confirm one 

by the fact that the Evangelists ex- another. 



1U 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. 



[part 



chap. II. 



Justin's histo- 
rical position 



in relation to 
the Murato- 
rian Canon 
and to 
Irenceus. 



On a comprehensive view, all is seen to lead to the same 
conclusion. The lines which seemed at first to cross 
one another at random give a result perfectly complete 
and symmetrical when followed out in every case to their 
legitimate limit ; and thus, even judging from a mere 
critical analysis, it appears to be a fact beyond doubt that 
Justin used the first three Gospels as we use them, as the 
authentic memoirs of Christ's life and work. 

If we glance at his historical position we seem to gain 
the same result with equal certainty. He states that the 
Memoirs of the Apostles were read in the weekly services 
of the Church on the same footing as the writings of the 
Prophets ; or in other words that they enjoyed the out- 
ward rank of Scripture. And since he speaks of their 
Ecclesiastical use without any restriction, it is natural to 
believe that he alludes to definite books, which were gene- 
rally regarded in the same light, and which had acquired 
a firm place in the common life of Christians. He could 
not at any rate have been ignorant of the custom of the 
churches of Italy and Asia; and if his description were 
true of any churches it must have been true of those. 
Is it then possible to suppose that within twenty or thirty 
years after his death these Gospels should have been re- 
placed by others similar and yet distinct 1 ? that he should 
speak of one set of books as if they were permanently 
incorporated into the Christian services, and that those 
who might have been his scholars should speak in exact- 
ly the same terms of another collection as if they had had 
no rivals within the orthodox pale ? that the substitution 
should have been effected in such a manner that no record 
of it has been preserved, while smaller analogous reforms 
have been duly chronicled 2 ? The complication of his- 



1 Cf. pp. 63, 64. 

2 As for example when Serapion 
reproved certain in the church at 



Rhossus for the use of the Gospel of 
St Peter (Euseb. H.E. VI. 12); or 
when Theoduixt substituted the Ca- 



I.] Justin Martyr. Ho 

torical difficulties in such a hypothesis is overwhelming ; chap. ii. 
and the alternative is that which has already been justi- 
fied on critical grounds, the belief that Justin in speaking 
of Apostolic Memoirs or Gospels meant the Gospels which 
were enumerated in the early anonymous Canon of Mura- 
tori, and whose mutual relations were so eloquently ex- 
pounded by Irenaeus. 

It appears then to be established both by external nowfarjvs- 
and internal evidence that Justin's 'Gospels' can be iden- q^ 1 ^ 01111 ' 3 
titled with those of St Matthew St Mark and St Luke. 
His references to St John are uncertain ; but this, as has 
been already remarked, follows from the character of the 
fourth Gospel. It was unlikely that he should quote its 
peculiar teaching in apologetic writings addressed to Jews 
and heathen ; and at the same time he exhibits types of 
language and doctrine, which, if not immediately drawn 
from St John, yet mark the presence of his influence and 
the recognition of his authority 1 . 

In addition to the Gospels the Apocalypse is the only f t l } ^° b ^ e kg 
book of the New Testament to which Justin alludes by J^iES. 
name. Even that is not quoted, but appealed to generally The Apocalypse, 
as a proof of the existence of Prophetic power in the 
Christian Church 2 . But it cannot be concluded from his 
silence that Justin was either unacquainted with the Acts 

nonical Gospels for the Harmony of Liicke (pp. 34 ff.) has shewn the con- 

Tatian, of which he found ' above nexion between Justin's doctrine of 

'two hundred in the churches.' the Logos and the Preface to St 

1 Cf. pp. 92, 93, n. 4, and Cred- John's Gospel. Otto (p. Si) also 

ner, Beitrage, I. 253 ff. Justin's ac- calls attention to hi3 doctrine of the 

quaintance with the Valentinians Eucharist as related to John vi. 

proves that the Gospel could not Compare also Just. Fragm. xi. ed. 

have been unknown to him (Dial. Otto, with Otto's note. 
•c. 35). The references to St John 2 Cf. p. 106.^ Ap. I. 28: 6 dpxv 

have been collected by Otto (Illgen's y^rr^s rwv kclkQv Saijxbvuv 6<pis na- 

Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1841, II. XeTrai kcli caravds kclI <5td/3o\os 

pp. 77 ff; 1843, I. 34 ff; cf. Liicke, coincides remarkably with Apoc. xx. 

Comm. ii. d. Ev. Joh. pp. 29 ff., ed. 3. The other passage to which Otto 

2). The chief passages are John hi. refers (a. a. 0. 1843, 1. 42) Dial. c. 

3 — 5, Ap. 1. 61, cf. p. 130; i. 13, 45, Apoc. xxi. 4, seems more uncer- 

Dial. c. 63; i. 12, Dial. c. 123; xii. tain. 
49, Dial. c. *6; vii 12, Dial. c. 69; 

C. L 



146 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [paet 



chap. ii. and the Epistles, or unwilling to make use of them. His 
controversy against Marcion is decisive as to his knowledge 

The writings of the greater part of the books, and various Pauline forms 
of expression and teaching shew that the Apostle of the 
Gentiles had helped to mould both his faith and his lan- 

Coiossians. guage 1 . Thus he says 'We w r ere taught that Christ is 
' the first-born {Trpoororoico^) of God :' ' we have recognized 
1 Him as the first-born of God and before all creatures :' 
'through Him God arranged (/coarfifjacu) all things 2 / Else- 
where he uses the example of Abraham to shew that cir- 

Romans. cumcision was for a sign and not for righteousness, ' since 
' he, being in uncircumcision, for the sake of the faith w T ith 
'which he believed God was justified and blessed 3 / 'By 
' faith {irio-Tet) we are cleansed through the blood of Christ 
'and His death who died for this 4 ;' 'through whom we 
' were called into the salvation prepared aforetime by our 
'Father 5 / 'Christ was the passover, who was sacrificed 

Corinthians, 'afterwards 6 ;' 'who shall come with glory from the hea- 
' vens, w r hen also the man of the falling away — the man 
'of lawlessness (c. 32), — who speaketh strange things — 
'blasphemous and daring (c. 32), even against the Most 
' High, shall exert his lawless daring against us Christians 7 / 



2 Thessalo- 
nians. 



. 1 Otto, a. a. 0. 1842, it. pp. 41 ff. 
The absence of all mention of the 
name of St Paul can create no diffi- 
culty when it is remembered that 
Justin speaks of St Peter as eva rCov 
dTToaroXcov, and of the sons of Zebe- 
dee as aXXovs dvo ddeX(povs. Dial. 
c. 106. 

2 Ap. i. 46; Dial. c. 100; A p. 11. 
6 ; cf. Col. i. 15 — 17. 

3 Dial. c. 23: /cat yap avrbs 6 
'Afipaap, eV aKpo(3vcrria cov did rr\v 
ir'tar iv r t v iiriarevcre rif 6ecp edi- 
Kaabdr} Kal evXoyrjGrj. The depar- 
ture from the Pauline point of view- 
is to be noticed ; faith is here repre- 
sented as the moving cause (did ace), 
and not as the instrumental (did 
gen.) cause, or as the spring (e/c) of 



justification. 

4 Dial. c. 13. 

5 Dial. c. 1 31. 

6 Dial, cm; 1 Cor. v. 7: cf. 
Otto, a. a. 0. 1843, *• 3 8 *• wno 
refers to several other coincidences 
between the Epistles to the Corinth- 
ians and Justin. Dial. c. 14 || 1 Cor. 
v. 8 : Ap. 1. 60 || 1. Cor. ii. 4 f. 

7 Dial. c. no (cf. c. 32): dvo 
Trapovaiac avrov KarrjyyeXfi&ai elai' 
pla fiev ev y iradyrbs Kal ddo^os /cat 
dripios Kal crravpovpieucs KeKrjpvKrai, 
7) de devripa iu y p-erd d6£r)s dirb 
rCov ovpavCov irdpearai, drav Kal 6 
t?)S diroaracrias dvdpwrros 6 Kal els 
rbv v-tyivrov 2£a\Aa XaXQv errl rijs 
7'/}s dvopia roXpnfjar) els ijpids rods 
XpHTTiavofc. Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 3 fF. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 1-17 

Elsewhere he speaks of Christ as 'the Son and Apostle of chap. ii. 

1 God 1 / Hebrews. 

The most remarkable coincidences between Justin and coincidences 

between Jus- 

St Paul are found in their common quotations from the t™ and st 

L Paul in quota- 

Septuagint. It is possible indeed that these may have tiom/rom the 
been derived from some third source, or grounded on a 
traditional rendering of the words of the Old Testament ; 
but in the absence of all evidence of such a fact it is more 
natural to believe that the arguments of St Paul and 
the readings which he adopted were at once incorporat- 
ed into the mass of Christian evidences, and reproduced 
by Justin so far as they fell within the scope of his works. 
One example will explain the nature of the agreement. 
Speaking of the hatred which the Jews shewed to Chris- 
tians, Justin says to them that it is not strange ; ' for 
' Elias also making intercession about you to God speaks 
'thus: Lord, they killed Thy Prophets, and threw down 
c Thy altars, and I was left alone, and they are seeking my 
6 life. And He answers him : i~ have still seven thousand 
1 men who have not bent knee to Baal 2 ' The passage agrees 
almost verbally with the citation of St Paul in the 
Epistle to the Romans, and differs widely from the text 
of the LXX. Similar examples occur in other citations 
common to Justin and the Epistles to the Galatians and 
the Ephesians 3 : and thus he appears to shew traces of 

1 Ap. I. 12, 63; cf. Hebr. iii. i. xix. 10, 14, 18. In the LXX. the 

The title is used nowhere else in the text stands in ver. 10, £r}\£v iftXtona 

New Testament but in this passage ry Kvpup wavroKparopL on eyKart- 

of the Hebrews. Otto also quotestwo \iir6v ae (rr\v dtaOrjKTjp aov v. 14, r. I. 

other parallels to the language of the ae) ol viol 'laparjX' (v. 14 + kclI) ra 

same Epistle: Dial. c. 13 || Hebr. ix. OvaLaarrjpLd aov KareanaxJ/av (KaOei- 

131*. : c. 34 || Hebr. viii. jf. \av v. 14) kclI tovs -irpo^ras aov 

The references to the Acts are un- dweKTtivav eu pp/x<paia, kclI utto\£- 

certain. Cf. Ap. I. 49 || Acts xiii. 2 7, Xet/uLfMcu iyib fiovuraros kclI ^nTovat 

48. Otto, a. a. 0. Still more so those rrjv \pvxw pov Aa/SetV avT^v...x. 

to the Pastoral and Catholic Epi- 18 : KaraXetyeis ev 'lapaifX ewra 

X<-XidSas dvdpQv, irdvra ybvara a 



2 Otto, a. a. 0. 1843, T * PP- 3°"ff. ovk u>;<Xaaav yovv tl3 BctaX.. 
Dial. c. 39 = Rom. xi. 3. 1 Kings 3 These passages are : 

Ap.l.$2 — Rom. xiv. 11. Isai. xlv. 23. 

L % 



148 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. II. 



Beferenc.es to 
the New Tes- 
tament in the 
fragment 
de Kesurrec. ; 



the Oratio and 
Cohortatio ad 
Graecos. 



General re- 
sult. 



Limits to the 
Evidence, of 
Justin. 



the influence of all St Paul's Epistles with the exception 
of the Pastoral Epistles and those to the Philippians 1 and 
Philemon. 

In the other writings commonly attributed to Justin 
besides the Apologies and Dialogue the references to the 
New Testament exhibit the same general range. In the 
fragment On the Resurrection there are allusions to words 
and actions of our Lord characteristic of each of the four 
Gospels 2 without any trace of Apocrj r phal traditions; and 
besides this there are coincidences of lanoma^e with St 
Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, the .Epistle to the 
Philippians, and the First to Timothy 3 . In the Address 
and Exhortation to Greeks there are apparently remi- 
niscences of the Gospel of St John, of the Acts of the 
Apostles, and among the Epistles of St Paul of the First to 
the Corinthians and those to the Galatians and Colossians 4 . 

A combination of these different results will give the 
general conclusion of the whole section. And it will be 
found that the Catholic Epistles and the Epistles to Titus 
and Philemon alone of the writings of the New Testament 
have left no impression on the genuine or doubtful works 
of Justin Martyr. 

But the evidence of Justin so far as it is preserved 
stops short of the conclusions of the next generation. It 
establishes satisfactorily his acquaintance with the chief 
books of the New Testament Canon, and his habitual 



Dial. c. 27 = Rom. iii. 12 — 17. Ps. xiv. 3, 5, 10; cxxxix. 4. 

— c. 95 = Gal. iii. 10. Deut. xxvii. 26. 

— c. 96= — iii. 13. — xxi. 23. 
c. 39 = Eph. iv. 8. Ps. lxviii. 18. 



1 The reference of Dial. c. 12 to 
Phil. iii. 3 is very uncertain. 

2 (a) St Matthew xxii. 29 (c. 9) ; 

30 (c. 2) ; xxviii. 17 (c. 2). 
(/3) St Mark xvi. 14, 19 (c. 9). 
(7) St Luke xxiv. 38, 39, 42 

(c. g). 
(5) St John xiv. 2, 3 (c. 9) ; xx, 

25> 2 7 ( c - 9); xi « 2 5 (cf. c, 1). 



3 1 Cor. xv. 53 (c. 10). Philipp. 
iii. 20 (cc. 7, 9). 1 Tim. ii. 4 (c. 8). 

4 John viii 44 ; Cohort, c. 21. 
Acts vii. 22 ; Cohort, c. 10. 1 Cor. 
iv. 20 ; Cohort. c. 35. 1 Cor. xii 7 
— 10; Cohort, c. 32. Galat. iv. 12, 
v. 20, 21 ; 0ra&c. 5. Coloss. i. 16; 
Cohort, c. 15. 



I.] Justin Martyr. 149 

use of them* within the range covered by his extant chap. ii. 
writings. But on the other hand it does not offer any clear 
indications of his recognition of a definite collection of Apo- 
stolic books parallel to the Old Testament and of equal 
authority with it. It is possible, and indeed likely, that this 
defect may be due in some degree to the nature of the 
subjects with which he deals. His object was to establish a 
conviction on the first elements of the faith and not to 
develope Christian truth. The coincidence of the facts of 
the Gospel with the ancient Prophecies of the Jews fur- 
nished him with arguments which he could not have 
drawn from the essential character of the Apostolic teach- 
ing". For the rest the words of Christ rather than the 
precepts of His disciples offered those broad maxims of 
Christian morality which could be presented with the 
greatest effect to readers who were at best very imperfectly 
acquainted with the nature of Evangelic doctrine. 

There are indeed traces of the recognition of an au- now far he 

° recognizee -a 

thoritative Apostolic doctrine in Justin, but it cannot be JJ^ggJ* 

affirmed from the form of his language that he looked doctrine. 

upon this as contained in a written New Testament. 

* We have been commanded,' he says, ' by Christ Himself 

'to obey not the teaching of men but those precepts 

1 which were proclaimed by the blessed Prophets and 

'taught by Himself 1 / But this teaching of Christ was 

not strictly limited to His own words as Justin explains 

in another passage : ' As [Abraham] believed on the voice 

'of God and it ivas reckoned to him for righteousness, 

' in the same way we also when we believed the voice 

'of God which was spoken again by the Apostles of 

' Christ, and the voice which was proclaimed to us by the . 

'Prophets, even to dying [for our belief], renounced all 

' that is in the world 2 / Thus the words of the Apostles 

1 Dial. c. 48. vos ttj <f>(jjvjj rov deov iTri<TT€V(r€...Kal 

2 Dial. c. 119: bv yap Tpbirov e/ce?- ijfxeU tt} (pujv^ to£ deov tt) did re ru)v 



150 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. were in his view in some sense the words of Christ, 
and we are therefore justified in interpreting his language 
generally, .so as to accord with the certain judgment of 
his immediate successors. His writings mark the era of 
transition from the oral to the written Rule 1 . His re- 
cognition of a New Testament was practical and not 
formal. As yet the circumstances of the Christian Church 
had not led to the final separation of the Canonical writings 
of the Apostles from others which claimed more or less 
directly to be stamped with their authority 2 . 

awocrToKbjv rod XpLCTov XaXrjdelarj suggested between the book of the 

ttolXlv /ecu rfj 5ia r(bv irpo(pT]TQp lerjpv- Prophets in relation to the Lawgiver 

X#eu7# 7}fAiv iTL(TT€v<TavT€s ^XP L T °v an d that of the Apostles in relation 

dirodvrj(7K€Lv iraai rols ev r<2 Koa/ncp to Christ. 

direr a^dfieda. Thus the Christian l Compare p. 50. 

Gospel is in some sense a ■ republi- 2 Justin's scholar Tatian will be 

cation' of the Gospel of the Pro- noticed below in Chap. iv. § 10. 

phets, and an obvious analogy is 

Note A: see page 108. 

Norton has brought forward some good passages from the first Apology 
(Note E, § 2) ; and Semisch has earned out the investigation with consider- 
able skill (pp. 239 ff.). Credner has collected Justin's quotations, and com- 
pared them elaborately with the MSS. of the LXX. It is superfluous to 
praise the care and ability by which his critical labours are always marked. 

The following Table of the more remarkable instances of the freedom 
of Justin's quotations from the Old Testament, where the variations can- 
not be explained on the supposition of differences in MSS., will be useful 
to those who wish to examine the question for themselves : 
(a) Free quotations, giving the sense of the original text: 



Gen. i. 1 — 3 


Apol. 1. 59 


— iii. 15 


Dial. c. 102 


— vii. 16 


— c. 127 


— xi.5 


— _ 


— xvii. 14 


— c. 10 


Exod. iii. 2 &c. 


Apol. 1. 63 


— xvii. 16 


Dial. c. 49 


— xx. 4 


— c. 94 


— xxxii. 6 


— c. 20 


2 Sam. vii. 14 sqq. 


— c. 118 


1 Kings xix. 14 sqq. 


— c. 39 


Job i. 6 


— c. 79 


Ezra vi. 2 1 (?) 


— c. 72 


Isai. i. 7 


Apol, 1. 47 


9 


Dial. c. 55 


23 


— c. 82 


— iii. 16. 


— c. 27 


— v. 25 


— c. 133 



I.] Justin Martyr, 151 

CHAP. II. 





Isai. ix\ 6 


Apol 1. 35 * 






— xxxv. 5 sqq. 


48. 


Cf. Matt. xi. 5. 




— xlii. 16 


Dial. c. 122 






— liv. 9 


— c. 138 






— lix. 7, 8 


— c. 27 






— lxvi. 1 


C 22 






Jerein. vii. 2T, 22 


— 






— xxxi. 27 


— c. 123 






Ezech. iii. 17 — 19 


— c. 82 






— xiv. 20 


— c. 45 






— xxxvii. 7 


Apol. 1. 52 






Hos. i. 9 


Dial. c. 19 






Joel ii. 28 


— c. 87 






Zech. ii. 6 


Apol. 1. 52 






— xii. 10 sqq. 


— — 




(p) 


Adaptations of the text : 








Gen. xxxv. 1 


Dial. c. 60 






Exod. iii. 5 


Apol. 1. 62 






Numb. xxi. 8, 9 


— 60 






— — 


Dial. c. 94 






Deut. si. 16 sqq. 


— c. 49 






— xxi. 23 


— c. 96. 


Cf. Gal. iii. 1 3. 




— xx vii. 26 


— c. 95. 


Cf. Gal. iii. 10. 




— xxx. 15, 19 


Apol. L 44 




(y) 


Combinations of different 


passages: 




i. 


Isai. xi. t, 10 ) 
Numb. xxiv. 1 7 \ 


Apol, 1. 32 




2. 


Psalm xxii. 17 — 19) 
— iii 5 ' \ 


38 




3. 


Isai. liii. 12 ) 
— Iii. 13— liii. 8j 








50 




4. 


Zech. ii. 6 \ 
Isai. xliii. 5 








Zech. xii. 1 1 sqq. 1 
Joel ii. 13 / 


Apol. 1. 52 






Isai. lxiii. 17 








— lxiv. n 






5- 


Ezek. xxxvii. 7 ) 
Isai. xlv. 23. \ 












6. 


Exod. iii. 2, 14, 15 


- 63 




7. 


Isai. vii. 10 — 16) 








— viii. 4 [ 


Dial. cc. 43, 


66. Cf. c. 77. 




— vii. 16, 17 ) 






8. 


Jerem. ii. 13) 








Isai. xvi. 1 > 


— c. 114 






Jerem. iii. 8 ) 






It will be noticed that the free quotations are found almost equally dis- 


tributed 


in the Apology and the 


Dialogue, being 


chiefly short passages 


for which 


it was not unreasonable to trust to memory: that the adapta- 


tions are 


probably confined to the Pentateuch — the 


typical history of the 



first Apology, and consist of Prophecies fitted together according to the 
connexion of sense. 






152 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [pakt 



CHAP. II. These passages will serve to illustrate the general principles of Jus- 

tin's method of citation. In the following note will be found a table of the 
texts which he quotes more than once, from which may be seen the 
amount of verbal accuracy with which he contented himself. 



Note B: seepage in. 

A general view of the passages which Justin quotes more than once will 
give a better idea of the value of this argument than anything else. The 
following list is I believe fairly complete. The sign j| indicates agreement 
in the citations between which it stands; X difference; X X difference 
from both the forms before given; v. 1., vv. 11., mark the existence of 
one or more various readings apparently of less importance: 



Gen. i. i, 2 

— iii. 22 

— xv. 6 

— xviii. 1, 2 

— — 13, i 4 sqq. 

— xix. 24 

— xxviii. 14 

— xxxii. 24 

— xlix. 10 



— — n 
Numb. xxiv. 17 
Prov. viii. 21 — 25 
Ps. i. 3 

— ii- 7> 8 

— iii. 5 

— xix. 2—5 

— xxii. 16, 18 

— xxiv. 7 

— xlv. 6—17 

— lxxii. 1 — 5, 17 — 19 

— xcvi. 1 — 4 

— xcix. 1 — 7 

— ex. 1—3 
Isai. i. 3 

16 — 20 

23 

~ ii- 5, 6 

— iii. 9, 10, 11 

— v. 18—20 

— vi. 10 

— vii. 10 — 

— viii. 4 

— xi. 1 

— xxix. 13 

— — 14 

— xxxv. 4 — 6 



1. 



i 



vv.- 11. 
vv. 11. 
Cf. c. 

V. 1. 



129 



Dial. 



Ap. 1. 59 || Ap. I. 64 

Dial. 62 || Dial. 129 

~- 92. Cf. c. 119 

— ^6 || Dial. 126 

— 56 II — 126 
_ 5 6* — 127. 

— 58 II — 120 
58. Cf. c. 126 
52 || Dial. 120 X Ap. I. 32 (avTo\e£d), 

54. Cf. Credner, Beitrage, IL pp. 
51 sqq. 



w. 11. 



64; 42 (ver. 4) 
- 35 X Ap. 1. 38 X X Dial. 98 
Dial, 36 || Dial. 127 X c 85 X X Ap. 1. 51 
Dial. 38 || — 63 v. 1.; 56 (vv. 6, 7); S6 

(v. 7) 
Dial. 34 X — 64 X X c. 121 (v. 17) 

— 73. Cf. Ap. 1. 41 (1 Chro. xvi. 26 fF.) 

— 37 II Dial. 64 vv. 11. 

— 32 || Ap. I. 45 (but'Ie/). for Habv) 
Ap. I. 37 (Xa6s /jlov) || A p. 1. 63 v.l. (\a6s p.e) 

— 53 X Dial. 140. Cf. Dial. 55 

— 44 II Ap. 1. 61 (omitting v. 19) 
Dial. 82. Cf. c. 27 

— 135. Cf. c. 24 

— 17 || Dial. 133 v. 1.; c. 136 

— — II ~ — v. 1. ; X Ap. I. 49 (v. 20) 
Difd. 12 X — 33 



Dial. 


54. 


Cf. 


c. 7 


6 


Ap. 1 


• 32 


X Dial 


. 106 


Dial. 


61 


II 


— 


129 


Ap. 1 


.40 


II 


— 


86 


— 


— 


II 


— 


122 


— 


38 * 


— 


f 


— 


40 


II 


— 


64; 



43 



66 w. 11. 



Ap.i. 32 (Cf. Numb. xxiv. 17) X Dial. 87 
Dial. 78 X Dial. 27 X X c. 140 (diapprjdTjv) 
Dial. 32 X — 78 XX C.38XXXC 123 
Ap. I. 48 X — 69 



I.] Justin Martyr. 153 

Isai. xlii. i — 4 * Dial. 123 K Dial. 135 CHAP. II. 

— lii. 15 — liii. 1 sqq. Ap. I. 50 II — 13 w. 11. 

— lv. 3— 5 Dial. 12 K — 14 

— lvii. 1, 2 Jjp. I. 48 || — 16 vv. 11. 

— lxiv. 10—12 — 47 K — 25 H K 4jp. I. 52 (v. 11) 

— lxv. 1 — 3 ,4jp. 1. 49 H — 24 

— lxvi. I — 37 II — 22 

Ezek. xiv. 20 Dial. 45 H - 44 ^ K c 140 

Dan. vii. 13 Ap. 1. 51 H — 3r 

Micah v. 1, 2 — 34 || — 78 

Zech. ii. ji Dial. 115 K — 119 

Mai. i. 10—12 Z)/aZ. 28 || — 41 vv. 11. 

The only passage of any considerable length which exhibits continuous 
and important variations is Isai. xlii. 1 — 4. Cf. Credner, II. 210 sqq. 

It will be noticed that the number of texts repeated with verbal accuracy 
is very small. 

Note C : see page 129. 

Though I am by no means inclined to assent without reserve to the 
judgment of Bornemann on D, yet it seems to me to represent in im- 
portant features a text of the Gospels, if not the most pure, yet the most 
widely current in the middle or at least towards the close of the second 
century. This is not the place to enter into a discussion of the extent 
of its agreement with the earliest Versions and Fathers. It is sufficient 
to have the result indicated which seems to follow from it. The MS. was 
probably written about a. d. 500 — 550, but it was copied from an older 
stichometrical MS., which in turn was based upon another older still. Com- 
pare Scrivener, Beza Codex, Introd. p. xxxiii. : Credner, Beitrage, I. 465. 

In Luke xv., to take a single chapter as an illustration of the 
statement in the text, the following readings are found only in D and d 
(the accompanying Latin Version), 

ver. 4. os 2£«. 

7. oi>x ^xovvi XP € ^ ap (order). 
9. rets yeirouas kcll <pi\as (order). 
13. iavrov tov (3lov for ti\v ovcriav avrou. 
21. a 67 vlos etirev avTy (order). 

23. €v£yKaT€...K(tl 6vaaT€ for (p{peTe...6u(raTe. 

24. dpri cvptdr). 

27. tov <t€lt€vt6u h6<tx ov uvt<? (omitting however avrip ad init.). 
[28. rjpi-aTo (? TrapaKaketv) coepit rogare Vulg.] 

29. £pi<pov i£ alyQv for Zpicpov (haedum de capris d.). 

30. r$ 5£ vi<$ aov r<? Ka<paybvTi (sic) iravra /ierd tQv TopvQv 
Kal eXdopTL tdvvas tov o~. jul. Comp. the reading of e. 

These readings it is to be remembered are found in a MS. of the 
Canonical Gospels. Is it then incredible that Justin's quotations were drawn 
directly from another, which need not have differed more from the common 
text ? For other reasons it seems highly improbable that it was so, but not 
from the character of the variations which they consistently preserve. 

The greater interpolations of D are well known. Examples may be 
found in Matt. xx. 28; Luke vi. 5 ; xvi. 8 ; Acts xv. 2 ; xviii. 26, 27 ; cCr. 
Credner has examined many of the readings of D (Beitrage, 1. 4526°.) but he 
has by no means exhausted the subject. See also Scrivener, ib. pp. xlviii. ft 



154 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

CHAP. II. The peculiar readings of D are the best known and in many respects the 

most remarkable of those found in MSS. of the Canonical Gospels ; but 
readings of a like character occur in considerable numbers in other of the 
most ancient Greek MSS., as for instance in Cod. Sinait. in I John, and in 
copies of the oldest Versions, as aek of the Vetus Latina, and in the Cure- 
tonian Syriac, which happens to be the only copy of the Vetus Syra pre- 
served to us. 

Similar readings are also found in Greek and Latin MSS. of a much 
later date. Compare Scrivener, Codex Avgiensis, pp. xl. ff. One of the 
most remarkable instances of a peculiar form of text in a detached narrative 
has been lately brought to light in a fragment of the ixth century discovered 
in the Library of Trin. Coll. Cambridge (W d ). It was found by Mr Brad- 
shaw in the binding of a MS. which came from Mount Athos. The little 
scraps of which it is made up when rightly fitted together give the text of 
Mark vii. 30 Sai/jLoptop — viii. 16 6'rt tiprovs with the exception of a few 
words, and about six other isolated verses of the same Gospel (vii. 3, 7, 8 ; 
ix. 2, 7, 8, 9). The larger fragment is of great interest, and as it has not 
been published it may be well to give the text of the first paragraph (ch. vii. 
31 — 37), which contains one of the very few passages peculiar to St Mark: 
Kat iraXiP e^eXdcop dir[o r]cJ 
opiojp Tvpou /cat 2.i5[u)v]o<T 

7jX0€P €L<T Tt]V B OikaSjJ <j\o.V 

T7)<r Ta\i\oua(T ava //,e(yo]j> 
tup opioop T7)<r A[e/ca7roXe] 
(off 4- /cat (pepovaiv avrw 
ku<I>op kcu fioyyiXaXoy 
/cat irapeKaXovp avrop 

iv x €t /° a(7 + KCU (omitting either raa or at/r w) 

eiri\a(3o/jL€i'ocr avrov airo 
rov oyXov /car t5ta*> eirrv 
aep eio- rove daKrvXovo" av 
tou /cat e(3aXep et<r ra wra 

TOV KUXpOV'.'KCLl 7}\f/aT0 

Trj<r yXuaaac rov [xoyyiXa 

\ov + /c[at] apafSXeif/aa e[i<r] rov 

ovpop [a]v€<rT€va%€v /cat 

\e7e1 aura + €<p<pa6a e<r 

tip d[iap]vx[6]yTL /cat 5t | ei/0eu>(r 

TjpoLxGrjaap avrov at a/co 

at /cat rov fioyytXaXov eXv 

rr)o~ yX (avrov probably omitted) 

eXaXrj opdvcr + /cat dieareiXaro 

au[r]oi<r tpa firjdepL Xeycaaip 
Oo~o[p 5]e aurotcr StecrreXXero 

a[vr]oi fiaXXop ire pur core 

pco[o~ e^Kripvo-Gop /cat irap 
Tecr [e%]€7rX7)o-o-opro Xeyoprec 

[/caXJwcr 7ra^ra 7rotet rove 

KUHpOVCr 7T0t€l aKOV€lP 

/cat rov<r aXaXova XaXeip. 
Thus we have in the space of seven verses, though there is no parallel 
narrative to disturb the text, the following readings in this Manuscript 
which are found nowhere else : 
vii. 31. dirb tup bpicop. 



I.] The Second Epistle of Clement 155 

32. irapefaXovv. CHAP. II. 

33. twrvutv els rovs daKrv\ovs avrou kclI Zfiakev els ra arret rod 

k co (pod Kal rj'J/aTo ttjs y\(bjoas (sic) rod poyy i\d\ov. 
35. Kal rod /JLoyyiXaXov. 
37. Kal irdvres e^eTrX-qaaovTO. 
— irdvra iroie? t tovs k. 
Nor are the peculiarities confined to this one narrative. In the remain- 
ing verses the following readings are found in this Manuscript alone : 
[vii. 8. d(pivT€s — dvdpuiirwv omitted by homceoteleuton.] 
viii. 1. cvv[ax\deuTos for ovros. ' 

— 4. xcprdaai £5e (order). 

ix. 2. fJL€Ta/JL0p<fi0VTai. 

— 7. dyairTjrbs bv i^eXe^dfXTjv. (Cf. Luke ix. 35, not JRec.) 

In addition to absolute peculiarities there are also about ten other read- 
ings which it gives in common with one or two other Manuscripts. 

Of the peculiar readings one it will be observed contains a repetition 
of a peculiarity (vv. 33, 35, the emphatic rod pLoyyiXdXov) ; and another 
(ix. 7) is an adaptation of a familiar biblical phrase to a new connexion. 
Thus we find within the compass of a few verses in a comparatively late 
MS. of the Canonical Gospels phenomena similar to those presented by the 
most remarkable of Justin's Evangelical quotations. The very fragments 
which remain of the early variations of the text of the G-ospels are full of 
instruction ; but it is wholly needless to have recourse to unknown or un- 
canonical books for details which were probably introduced from tradition 
into our Canonical texts as soon as they were embodied in Apocryphal Gos- 
pels, if in fact they did ever find a place in the latter. 

Note D: see page 136. 

An examination of the following passages common to Justin and the 
Homilies will shew how their citations differ: 



Matt. iv. 10 


Horn. 


viii. 21 


DiaJ: cc. 103; 125 




— v. 39, 40, 


— 


xv. 5 


Apol. 1. 16 




cf. Lu. vi. 29 










Matt. vi. 8 


— 


5ii- 55 


— 15 




— - vii. 15 


— 


xi. 35 


— 16; Dial. c. 


35 


— viii. n 


— 


viii. 4 


Dial. c. 76 




— x. 28 


— 


xviii. 3 


Apol. 1. 19 




— xi. 27 


— 


— 4 


— 63 ; Dial. c. 


100 


— xix. 16 


— 


— 3 


— 16; — c. 


101 


Luke vi. 36 


— 


iii- 57 


— 15; — c. 


96 


— xi. 52 


— 


— - 18 


— 17 





§ 8. The Second Epistle of Clement. 
The so-called Second Epistle of Clement offers a re- Th* Second Ep. 

..-,. riTWT ^ Clement m 

markable example 01 the transitional view ol the New theAiex. ms. 
Testament Scriptures which has been observed in Justin. Homily. 
This fragment, which appears from its general style and 
form to be part of a Homily and not of a Letter, is found 



156 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. II. 



A Pentile 
writing. 



together with the First Epistle at the close of the Alex- 
andrine MS. of the Greek Bible, where it is reckoned among 
the books of the New Testament. No other copy of it is 
known to exist, and in ancient times it seems to have been 
Very little read. Eusebius is the earliest writer who men- 
tions it, and he observes that it was ' not so well-known 
* as the former one ;' while from the tenour of his language 
it is evident that he questioned its genuineness 1 . Jerome 
distinctly states that 'it was rejected by the ancients/ 
though it is uncertain whether he had any independent 
evidence for his assertion 2 ; at a later time Photius repeats 
the same statement, and adds some unfavourable criticisms 
on the character of the book 3 . 

But however little claim the writing may have to the 
Canonical authority which was sometimes assigned to it 
in consideration of its supposed authorship 4 , there can be 
no doubt that it was an early orthodox Christian composi- 
tion of a date not much later than the middle of the 
second century. And it is of the greater interest because 
the writer is a Gentile and addressing Gentiles. The pe- 
culiarities of Justin's quotations have been connected 
more or less plausibly with his supposed Ebionitic con- 
nexions and tendencies; but no such explanation is ad- 
missible in this case. If it were allowable to assume the 
existence of any special tendency in the writer it would be 
towards the Gospel of the Uncircumcision ; but on the 
contrary he speaks as the confident exponent of catholic 



1 Euseb. H. E. in. 38 : Urkov 5' 
cl>s kqX devrtpa ris elvcu \4yerat rod 
HLXrjfievTos iTriffToXr}' ov jultju e0' 
6/JLolus rrj irporepa koX raOrrju yvu)- 
pifjLov eTTHTTdfMeda, 6ri firjdt kclI roi)s 
apxatovs avrfj Kexpyp<frovs l<s\i£v. 

2 Hieron. de Virr. III. c. 13: 
Fertur et secunda ejus nomine epi- 
fitola, quae a veteribus reprobatur. 



3 Photius, BibUoth. pp. 156, 163 
(ed. Hoesch.). 

4 As in the Cod. Alex., the Apo- 
stolic Canons, Can. 76 (85); Alexius 
Aristenus ad Can. Apost. I. c, though 
not, as some writers have said, in 
Johannes Damasoenus, de Fid. Orth, 
IV. 17. See App. D. No. v. 



I.] The Second Epistle of Clement 157 

truth, and his evidence may be received as the natural chap, it 
expression of the usage not of a party but of the age. 

The chief scope of the Homily is an exhortation to- its scope. 
wards the perfection of Christian life. It is addressed to 
Christians, and therefore the fundamental doctrines of the 
faith are assumed. The importance of works is insisted 
on, not that they may earn salvation, but because Christ 
6 saved us' when 'He saw that we had no hope of salvation 
' except that which comes from Him 1 .' 'We must not 
' think meanly of our salvation,' such is the opening of 
the discourse, c we must think of Jesus Christ as God, as 
< the Judge of quick and dead.' ' Our reward is [that He 
'will confess us] if we confess Him through whom we 
'were saved 2 .' To quicken the perception of the need 
of this confession and to dwell on the necessity of holiness 
is the immediate purpose of the argument, as it must be 
with every preacher, but no phrase occurs which points to 
holiness as necessary otherwise than as the condition of 
realizing salvation. 

In support of his teaching the writer appeals to the Useof scripture. 
Old Testament 3 and to the words of the Lord. Though the 
writings of the Apostles would have furnished him with 
almost every phrase which he needs yet he never appeals 
to any one of them as of primary authority. And this 
silence was not due to ignorance and still less to any 
divergence from Apostolic doctrine. He was acquainted 
with the writings of St Paul and St John 4 , and he incor- 

1 c. i. 2 c. iii. 4 For St Paul see especially 

3 The very remarkable anonymous c. vii : els rods (bdaprovs dywvas 

reference (X^yei 6 irpcxp-qriKOS \6yos, KarairXiovatv ttqWol d\\' ov irdvres 

c. xi.) to some Apocryphal book of crrecpauouvTaL el /j.7) ol 7ro\\a kottlcL' 

the Old Testament (? a Book of aavr es Kai kclXQs ' dy tovtcr dixevoi k. r.X. 

Enoch) is found also in Clem. Ep. as compared with i Cor. ix. 24. 

I. 23, from which it may have c. ix : 5 el ovv 7]fj,as u>s vabv Geov 

been borrowed. The passage con- (frvkacraeiv rrjv crdpKa. 1 Cor. iii. j6; 

tains a striking coincideuce with vi. 19. 

a }?eter iii. 4. c. xi. x Cor. ii. 9 ; the Septua- 



158 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. porates their thoughts and words into his Homily in a 
manner which shews that they had become his own. But 
still even up to his time the New Testament had no cer- 
tain and defined existence as coordinate with the Old. 
The full extent of the teaching which it ratifies was re- 
ceived : the elements of which it consists were known and 
recognized: but its actual authority was not formally or 
consciously acknowledged, though the Gospel at least was 
quoted as 'Scripture/ and, as will be seen in the next 
section 1 , the 'Scriptures of the Lord' were formed into a 
collection and distinguished from other Christian writings. 
Quotations of the The form of the quotations may have been influenced in 

Lord's ivords. _ . . T ... 

fact by the character ol the wilting. In a Homily it is 
more natural to quote the Gospels as the words of Christ 
than as the narrative of the Evangelist. But after due 
allowance has been made for this usage enough still 
remains to shew the freedom which was popularly allowed 
at the middle of the second century in dealing with Evan- 
gelic references and the influence still exercised by Apocry- 
phal records. Of nine passages cited from the Lord's teach- 
ing two only are referred to written sources. After quoting 
a passage of Isaiah with the same application of it as is 
made by St Paul 2 , the writer continues, ' And moreover 
? another Scripture saith I came not to call righteous men 
'but sinners 3 ;' a saying which is exactly contained in St 



gint gives quite a different render- 
ing. To these may be added c. i. : 
airod^evoL iiceivo 6 irepLKeipLeda vecpos. 
Hebr. xii. i. 

For St John see c. ix : els Xpt- 
crros 6 Kvpios 6 auocras r][ias wv [xev to 
irpGrov irvev/JLa kyivero adpij kc.1 
ovtojs 77/-KXS eKokecrev. John i. 14. 
Compare also the phrases 'iyvw^ev 
di avrov Tov irarepa rijs aXrjdeias 
(c. iii), 7rap6.K\rjros (c. vi). 

1 See page 166. 

3 Is. liv. 1; Gal.iv. 27. The pas- 



sage is taken verbally from the LXX. 

3 c. ii : kclI ertpa 8£ ypa<fir) Xiyet 
on ovk rj\dov KaXeaac dtKaious d\Xd 
apLCLpTcoXovs. The words occur Matt. 
ix. 13; Mark ii. 17. In the paral- 
lel passage of St Luke (v. 32) as 
p.er&voiav is added, in which form 
it is quoted in Barn. Ep. c. v., and 
Just. M. Ap. 1. 15. 

It will be remembered that a pas- 
sage of St Matthew is quoted as 
'Scripture' by Barnabas: see p. 45, 
n. 2. 



I-] 



The Second Epistle of Clement 



159 



Matthew and St Mark. ' The Lord saith in the Gospel/ he chap. ii. 
adds in another place, ■ If ye kept not that which is small 
' who will give you that which is great ? For I say unto you 
'that he that is faithful in very little is faithful also in 
much 1 .' Of this passage the last clause occurs verbally in 
St Luke xvi. 10, but the first part is not found in our 
Gospels. There is however some evidence to shew that it 
was once an alternative rendering of Luke xvi. ii, as it is 
quoted in the same form in the early Latin translation of 
Irenaeus 2 , though no Latin text of the Gospel at present pre- 
serves it. Of the anonymous quotations only one agrees 
verbally with our present Evangelic text, and that with St 
Luke 3 . Two or perhaps three others are free renderings of 
sayings preserved by St Matthew. ' [Christ] says Himself: 
' Him that confesses me in the face of men will I confess 
'in the face of my Father 4 .' 'For ivhat is the profit if a 
c man shall gain the tvhole luorld and lose his soaW 
' Let us not therefore only call Him Lord, for this will not 
'save us; for he says, Kot every one who saith to me Lord, 
'Lord, shall be saved, but he that doeth righteousness*' 

The remaining four quotations are unquestionably Apocryphal 

• i -i p • • Quotations. 

derived from Apocrj-phal sources so far as their form is 
concerned, though they have points of close connexion 
with the Canonical writings. ' For this reason the Lord 



1 c. viii. : \4yei yap 6 Ktf/uos ev ro3 
evayyeXlcc' Ei to jXLKpbp ovk erripr}- 
oare, to fieya tLs vpup Scocret ; \4yco 
yap v/jup otl 6 ttkttos €p i\ax'-0" r V 

/Cat €P TToWtd TTLCTTOS €(TTLP. On the 

use of to €vayye\tov see p. 98, n. 3. 

2 c. Hcer. n. 34. 3- 

3 c. vi.: Luke xvi. 13, ovdels ol- 
K€T7js duvaTat 5val Kvpiots dovXevew, 
and just afterwards 8eQ dov\eveiu Kal 
fj.a/Jicova. In Matt. vi. 24 oktrrjs is 
not found. 

4 c. iii.: \£yei d£ Kal avTos top 
bjULoXoyrjcapTa jme ipwirtop tup 
avOpuTrup 6jJ.o\oyrjo~(x) avTOP i pu- 



tt lop tov iraTpbs iiov. Compare 
Matt. x. 32. No closer parallel is 
preserved. 

5 c. vi. : tI yap to 6(pe\os idp tis 

TOP 3\0P KOCTfJLOP Kep5r)LT7] T1JP 5£ \j/v- 

XW ftpLuodfj; compare Matt. xvi. 
16. The phrase tI [to] 6<pe\os is 
found in James ii. 14, 16, and 1 Cor. 
xv. 32.^ 

c c. W.:...\£yei yap' Ov iras 6 \£yup 
/J.OL Kvpie KvpLe o~codr)0'€TaL a\\a 
6 ttoiQp T7]p 5iKaLoo~i>PT]p. Compare 
Matt. vii. si. No closer parallel is 
found. 



160 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. ' said : Should you be gathered with me in my bosom, 
' and not do my commandments, I will cast you away, and 
' will say to you : Get you from me : I Jenoiv you not 
1 whence ye are, workers of lawlessness V ' The Lord says 
' Ye shall be as lambs in the midst of wolves. But Peter 
* answering says to Him : [What] then if the wolves should 
'tear the lambs in pieces? Jesus said to Peter: Let not 
'the lambs fear the wolves after their death; and fear ye 
' not those who kill you and can do nothing [more] to you ; 
1 but fear Him who after you are dead has power over 
' soul and body to cast them into hell fire V We have no 
data for ascertaining whence these passages were taken. 
Their length and style seem to indicate that they were 
derived from writings and not from oral tradition, but 
whether they were taken from any of the numerous Apo- 
cryphal Gospels or from Traditions like those named after 
Mathias, or Expositions like that of Papias, is wholly 
unknown. The two quotations which are still left can be 
certainly connected with two Apocryphal Gospels, even if 
they were not immediately taken from them. ' The Lord 
'said: My brethren are these who do the will of my 
1 Father 3 / The idea of the passage is contained in St 

1 c. iv.:...iciv Tjre /xer' epiov <jvv- <po(3eicrd€ rbv p.era rb dirodavelv v/xds 
7jypt,4vot iv t<£ KdXirip pod ical /J.T] %x 0VTa ^ovalav fax?}* KCLL crci^taros 
iroiTJre rds ivroXds p.ov, dirofia- rod ftaXelv els yeevvav irvpbs. Coin- 
XQ v p. as Kal epQ vpuv'Tir ay ere air pare Matt. x. 16, 28; Luke x. 3; 

- i/jLoQ' ovk otda vp,ds irbdev fore ip- xii. 4, 5. No other trace of the 

ydrat dvopLlas. Compare Matt. conversation is preserved, 
vii. 23; Luke xiii. 27. The words 3 c. ix.: elirev 6 Kvptos 'AdeXcpci 

are very variously quoted, but no- piov ovrol el<riv ol iroLovvres to 6e\rjp.a 

where else in this form. rod irarpos ptov. Compare Matt. xii. 

2 c. v.: Xeyecydpo Ktiptos' "E<re- 50. The passage quoted by Epi- 
c6e Cos dpvla ev pt.e'cru} Xijkcjv. 'Atto- phanius from the Ebionites — it is 
icpiOels de 6 Herpos atfry Xi-yec JZav not said from what exact source — is: 
odv biao-irapd^wciv ol Xijkol rd dpvla ; ovrol elaiv ol dbeX(pol p.ov Kal ij pt,T)rt]p 
JLlTreif 6 'Irjaovs rep Utrpip' M77 <po- ol iroiovvres rd 6eXr)piara rod ira- 
fielcdcoaav rd dpvla rots Xvkovs p.erd rpds plov. For the plural rd deXfj- 
rb dirodavelv avrd' Kal vpcels pirj (f>o- fxara see Cod. B Mark iiL 35; and 
pelade rods diroKrhvovras vp.ds Kal also Cod. K Matt. vii. 21- 

pL7]$tv vyuv dvvapiivous iroLew' dXAcfc 



I.] The Second Epistle of Clement. 101 

Matthew, but *the turn of expression, which is noticeable, chap. ii. 
recurs in a quotation made by Epiphanius from c the 
' Ebionites,' and it cannot be doubted that the writer of 
the Homily derived it from some such source. The re- 
maining quotation is much more remarkable. ' The Lord 
1 Himself having been asked by some one When His 
' kingdom will come? said, When the Two shall be One, 
'and that which is Without as that which is Within, and 
'the Male with the Female neither Male nor Female 1 / 
This passage Clement of Alexandria, who also quotes it, 
says ' was contained, as he believed, in the Gospel accord- 
' ing to the Egyptians' 

It is however of comparatively little moment from 
what special source the sayings were derived, for there is 
no reason to believe that they were taken from any one 
book 2 . The majority of the quotations are more like 
passages of the Canonical text than any other known 
record, and the two which are connected with other books 
are connected with books which appear to have been 
widely different in scope and character. No question 
therefore arises whether a Gospel was used which occu- 
pied the place of the Canonical Gospels. The phenomenon 
to be observed is that these were not regarded as the 
sole record of the teaching of the Lord. The feeling 
which led men to the words of Christ still survived even 
when the record of them had received the name of Scrip- 
ture. It was not confined to any one party, but was 
common to all: to the Gentile no less than to the Jewish 

1 c. xii. : iTrepurrjdels yap avrbs 6 2 It may be noticed in particular 
KvpLos vir6 twos tt6t€ rj?€i avrov ij that they differ from corres ponding 
Pao-iXeia dTrev"OTav lara.1 rd 8vo &», passages in the, Clementina. Com- 
sat to ££« us to &rw, kclI t6 &paev pare c. v. ; Matt. x. 28 ; Clem, Bom. 
fjLeTd ttjs drjXeias ovtc dpaeu ovtc XVII. 5; Just. Ap. I. 19. 
6ij\v. Compare Galat. iii. 28. Cf. c. vi. : Luke xvi. 13; Clem. Re- 
Introduction to the Study of the Go- coyn. v. 9. 
spehf p. 427 n. 

C. M 



162 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [pa£t 

chap. ii. Churches. And it co-existed with that spirit which found 
its fitting expression in the next generation, and finally 
separated our four Gospels from all others both in popu- 
lar use as well as in intrinsic and recognized authority 1 . 

1 The quotations which occur in the two Epistles to Virgins assigned to 
Clement, which are preserved in a Syriac translation, deserve more notice 
than they have received, and this will be the most convenient place for call- 
ing attention to them. The Epistles in question were first published by 
"Wetstein as an Appendix to his New Testament in 1752. He found them 
in a Manuscript of the Syriac New Testament written at Mardin in 1469, 
which he obtained from Aleppo. The Manuscript contains all the books of 
the Syrian Canon with the Ecclesiastical Lections, and as an Appendix the 
remaining four Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2, 3 John, Jude) and the two 
Epistles of Clement to Virgins (Wetstein, Proleg. ill. iv.). The Apocalypse 
is not contained in it. No other known Manuscript, as far as I am aware, 
contains the Epistles, so that like the two Greek Epistles they depend upon 
a single copy. 

It would be impossible to enter into the question of the authenticity of 
the Epistles, which has found a zealous advocate in their latest editor, Card. 
Yillecourt. They cannot I believe be much later than the middle of the 
second century, and it is hardly probable that they are much earlier.. The 
picture of Christian life which they draw belongs to a very early age; and 
the comparison of the use made of Scripture in them with that made by 
Clement in his genuine Epistle shews that a considerable interval is required 
for a satisfactory explanation of the difference of manner. 

As in all the writings which have been examined hitherto so here the mass 
of quotations is anonymous ; but it is hardly too much to say that whole pa- 
ragraphs of these Epistles are a mosaic of Apostolic phrases. Some of the 
references to the Christian Scriptures however are more explicit, though 
no book of the New Testament (nor yet of the Old) is mentioned by name. 
Thus 'the divine Apostle' is cited for the condemnation in 2 Thess. iii. 1 1 ff., 
1 Tim. v. II 1 . The words in 2 Cor. xi. 29 are quoted as 'words of the 
Apostle 2 ;' and Horn. xiv. 15 and 1 Cor. viii. 12 as 'sayings of Paul 3 .' 'It 
'is written,' it is said again, 'of the Lord Jesus Christ, that when His dis- 
' ciples came and saw Him conversing apart near a well with the Samaritan 
'woman, they wondered that He talked with a woman 4 .' 'We read,'* it is 
said in the same chapter, ' that women ministered to the Apostles and to 
' Paul himself 3 .' Other passages are quoted with the formulas applied to 
-Scripture from 1 Peter, James, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Colossians, Hebrews, 
and 2 Timothy 6 . 

The anonymous quotations extend over a wider range and include pas- 
sages from St Matthew, St Luke (Ep. 1. 3, 6; 11. 15), St John (Ep. I. 8, 13 ; 
II. 15), Acts {Ep. 1. 9), 1 Peter, James, 1 John (Ep. ir. 16), and probably 
from all the Epistles of St Paul, including Hebrews, except that to Phile- 
mon (for Titus see Ep. 1. 4). 

There are not however any quotations out of St Mark, 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, 
Jude, and the Apocalypse. This is by no means surprising with regard to St 

1 Ep. l 10; n. 13. 2 Ep. 1. 12. 3 Ep. n. 5. 5 

4 Ep. 11. 15 ; J ohn iv. 27. 5 Ibid. Cf. Rom. xvi. 1, 2, dec. 

6 Ep. 1. it (James iii. 2; 1 Peter iv. 11) ; 1. 8 tRom. viii. 9); 1. 6 (1 Cor. iv .16. Cf. c. ir. 
and Ep. n. 13) ; L ix (Coloss. iv. 6) ; 1. 6 (Hebr. xiii. 7) ; 1. 3 (2 Tim. iii. 5). 



I.] Dionysius of Corinth. 163 

Mark. The comparative fewness of the Evangelic citations in the two Epistles CHAP. II. 
and the small number of peculiarities in his Gospel render it extremely un- 
likely that any passage certainly derived from it should have been found. 
The same may be said, though with far less likelihood, of the shorter Catholic 
Epistles; but if the writer had been acquainted with the Apocalypse he 
could hardly have failed to quote such a passage as xiv. 4, which has the 
closest connexion with his argument. 

In general it will be observed that (with the obviously accidental omission 
of St Mark and Philemon^ quotations are made from every book included 
in the Syrian Canon and from these only. The fact is significant, and pro- 
bably points to the country whence the Epistles derived their origin, though 
it is clear from internal evidence that they were originally written in Greek. 

One indication of the early date of the Epistles may be noticed in addi- 
tion to the anonymous form of the quotations. The enumeration of the 
primary authorities binding on the Christian is given in the form 'the Law 
- and the Prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ ',' just as it was given by Hege- 
sippus, as we shall see afterwards. But while the formula witnesses to the 
antiquity of the record, the usage of the writer shews convincingly that it 
did not exclude the fullest recognition of the authority of St Paul and of 
the Three. 

Compare Lardner's Dissertation (Works, Vol. xi. pp. 197 ff.) ; and Card. 
Villecourt's Dlssertalio Prcevia reprinted by Migne, Patr. App. 1. 355 ff. 

1 Ep. 1. 12. 

§ 9. Dionysius of Corinth and Pinytus. 

Ecclesiastical usage prepared the way to the recogni- connexion cf 
tion of the authority of the New Testament. It has been with jmtin 
shewn from the testimony of Justin Martyr that the reading '' 
of the Memoirs of the Apostles 1 formed part of the weekly 
services of Christians: two fragments of Dionvsius of 
Corinth throw light upon this usage. Dionysius appears to 
have been bishop of Corinth at the time of the martyrdom 
of Justin 2 ; and the passages in question are taken from 
a letter to Soter bishop of Rome. His testimony is thus 
connected both chronologically and locally with that of 
Justin. There is no room left for the accomplishment of 
any such change in the organization of the Church as 
should cause their words to be applied to different 
customs. 

1 p. 98. 177) fixes his death about 176, when 

2 Hieron. deTirr. III.c. 27: Claruit Commodus began to reign jointly 
sub Impp. L. Antonino Vero et L. with his father. 

Aurelio Commodo. Routh (r. p. 

M 2 



164 TJie Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap, il ' To-day was the Lord's-day [and] kept holy,' Dionysius 

fhe a r^var° f writes to Soter, 'and we read your Letter ; from the reading 
tion of Chris- < tQ f w hi cn f rom time to time we shall be able to derive 

ZWLTl WTlZlilffSm 

'admonition, as we do from the former one wTitten to us 
'by the hand of Clement 1 . 5 There are several points to be 
noticed here: it is implied that the public reading of 
Christian books was customary — that this custom was 
observed even in the case of those which laid no claim to 
Canonical authority — that it had been practised from the 
Apostolic age. Tertullian in a well-known passage 2 ap- 
peals to the copies of the Epistles still preserved by the 
Churches to which they were first written. The incidental 
reference of Dionysius shews that he is not using a mere 
rhetorical figure. If the Letter of the companion of Apo- 
stles was treasured up by those whom it reproved, it is 
past belief that the Churches of Ephesus or Colossse or 
Philippi should have received, as Apostolic Letters address- 
ed to themselves, writings which were not found in their 
own archives, and which were not attested by the tradi- 
tion of those who had received them. The care which was 
extended to the Epistle of Clement would not have been 
refused to the Epistles of St Paul. 
How far what Dionysius it is true says nothing in this passage 
upon the New directly bearing on the writings of the New Testament; 
but in referring to the ecclesiastical use of Clement's 
Epistle he proved that the Corinthian Church must have 
retained throughout the doctrine of St Paul, to whose 
authority it gives the clearest witness. And not only this, 

1 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23 (Routh, p. Cf. p. 51, andn. t. 

180) : Trjv arj/jLepov odv KvpcaKTjv The first clause is somewhat ob- 

ayiav rjpjpav dirrydyofxev, iv rj av& scure. If KuptaKTjv be not a gloss, 

yvu/jiev vfxwv ttjv i-rrio-ToXifju' rju g£o- ayiau Tj/uipau must be taken I think 

fxev del irore avayiPwcrKovres vov- as a predicate, as I have translated 

0rre?<70cu cos kolI 7-7/1/ irporipav ijfjup it. 

did KXrjfxevros ypa<p€?o~ai>. The plu- 2 de Prcescr. Hceret. c, 36. 
ral pronoun {vfxCov) is to be noticed. 



I.] Diony sins of Corinth. 165 

but so far as the Epistle of Clement was found to be chap. ii. 
marked by a peculiarly Catholic character 1 , the reception 
of that document is in itself a proof of the perpetuity of the . 
complete form of faith which it exhibits. The Catholicity 
of the Corinthian Church is indeed expressly affirmed in 
another fragment. Just as Clement appealed to the 
labours of St Peter and St Paul, placing them in clear and 
intimate connexion 2 , Diony sius describes the Churches of 
Rome and Corinth as their joint plantation. 'For both,' 
he says, ' having come to our city Corinth and planted us, 
' taught the like doctrine ; and in like manner having also 
'gone to Italy and taught together there, they were 
'martyred at the same time 3 / 

The intercourse of Dionysius with foreign Churches — nu testimony 

i • • ' • • i ii i a • important 

his 'inspired industry as it has been called 4 — gives an from hu in- 

x d . . tercourse with 

additional weight to his evidence. Besides writing to foreign, 

& ° Churches. 

Rome, he addressed ' Catholic Letters ' to Lacedsemon and 
Athens and Nicomedia, to Crete and to Pontus, for in- 
struction in sound doctrine, for correction of discipline, for 
repression of heresy 5 . The glimpse thus given of the 

1 Cf. pp. 11 ff. : see also p. 181. 4 Euseb. H. E. IV. iy. frdeos <pt- 

2 Clem, ad Cor. I. 5. "Xowovia. 

3 Euseb. H. E. II. 25 (Routh, 5 Euseb. I. c. The description 
he.): TaOra (al. ravrrj) /cat vjmeTs 5td which Eusebius gives of the Letters 
rrjs roaauT-ns vovdeaias rrju dirb H& accords with what might have been 
rpov /cat HavXov (pvreiav yewndelo-av conjectured of the characteristic 
'iufxaiuv re /cat Kopwdiwu (rvveKepd- faults of the churches. *H fxh irpbs 
care, /cat yap d/i0w kclI els ri}v 7?ue- Aa/ceSatuovtoi/s opdobo^las /carTjx^rt- 
rtpav Kbpivdov (pyrevcravres tj/aoZs ktj, elprjvrjs re /cat ei>uaeu)S viroderiKT)' 
d/ioius idida^ap' 6/jlolws 5£ /cat ets tt\v 7/ be irpbs 'A6-ni>aLovs biepyeTLKi) iri- 
'IraXtaj/ b/Jibcre bibd£avTes e^aprvp-n- o-reus /cat tt)s /card to evayye'\ioi> 
cav Kara top olvtov Kcupbv. It is iro\iTeias...dX\'n be... irpbs 'SLKOfirj- 
difficult to fix the exact sense of 5^as cptpeTat. ev fj rr\v Map/aa>j>os 
bfxoicos and sixbcre in the last clause. a!lpeo~iv iro\ep.Cov r$ ttjs dX-ndeias irap- 
I believe that bfxoius is to be taken /crrarat Kav6vi...The Cretan churches 
with the whole sentence and not he warns against * the perversion of 
with Stdd£ai>T€S f and that bjmbae ex- heresy,' and cmtions Pinytus bishop 
presses simply * to the same place.' of Gnossus against imposing conti- 
Bishop Pearson's interpretation nence. The churches of Pontus — 
(Routh, p. 192) seems to rest on the home of Marcion— he urges to 
false analogies. welcome those who came back to 



166 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



CHAP. II. 



His direct re- 
ference to the 
New Testa- 
ment Scrip- 
tures. 



communication between the Churches shews their general 
agreement, and the character of Dionysius confirms their 
orthodoxy. There is no trace of any wide revolution in 
doctrine or government — nothing to support the notion 
that the Catholic Creed was the result of a convulsion in 
Christendom, and not the traditional embodiment of Apo- 
stolic teaching. 

There were indeed heresies actively at work, but their 
progress was watched. Some of their leaders ventured to 
corrupt orthodox writings, but they were detected. 'When 
' brethren urged me to write letters/ Dionysius says, 'I 
' wrote them; and these the apostles of the devil have 
' filled with tares, taking away some things and adding 
'others, for whom the woe is appointed ' (Comp. Apoc. 
xxii. 18). 'It is not wonderful then that some have 
' attempted to adulterate the Scriptures of the New Testa- 
'ment (rcov Kvpia/coov rypacfxHv), when they have formed 
* the design of corrupting those which make no claims to 
c their character (ral? ov toulvtcils [sic] ETriftefiovXevicacn) V 
It is thus evident that ' the Scriptures of the Lord ' — the 
writings of the New Testament — were at this time collect- 
ed, that they were distinguished from other books, that 
they were jealously guarded, that they had been corrupted 
for heretical purposes. The allusion in the last clause will 



them after falling into wrong con- 
versation or heretical deceit. From 
these casual traits we can form a 
picture of the early Church real 
and life-like, though differing as 
widely from that which represents 
it without natural defects as from 
that which deprives it of all histo- 
rical unity. 

1 Euseb. I. c. : 'ETrtoToXct? yap 
d5eX0u)z> a£i(j)o~amu)v pe ypdxf/ai £- 
ypa\pa' icai ratiras oi rov 5ia/36Xou 
airdo-ToXoi tifavlwv yeyipiKav, a ph 
ii;aipovi>T€S a 8e irpoo-Tidivres, ots rb 
oval KeiTat. ov Oavpavrbv dpa el Kal 



tQ>v KvpiaicQv padiovpyijo-at rives 
[rivas Routh] eiripe'pXrjvTai ypa<pG)v, 
6itot€ Kal rah ov roiavrais iiripeftov- 
Xetf/ccKH. It is mentioned that Bac- 
chylides and Elpistus urged him to 
write to the churches of Pontus 
(Euseb. 1. c.) ; it is then possible that 
he alludes to the corruption of this 
very letter by the Marcionites. The 
parallel thus becomes complete. The 
New Testament Scriptures and the 
letters of Dionysius were corrupted 
by the same men and for the same 
purpose. 



I.] Dionysius of Corinth. 1G7 

be clear when it is remembered that Dionysius 'warred chap. ii. 
' against the heresy of Marcion, and defended the Rule 
'of truth' (irapiGTCLcrOaL kclvovi a\.)\ The Rule of Truth 
and the Rule of Scripture, as has been said before, mutu- 
ally imply and support each other. 

The language of Dionysius bears evident traces of his coincidence 
familiarity with the New Testament. with separate 

m . . . books. 

The short fragment just quoted contains two obvious 
allusions, one to the Gospel of St Matthew and one to the mi siiL 24 at. 
Apocalypse ; and in another passage he adopts a phrase AP x^' ' 
from St Paul's first Epistle to the Thessalonians 2 . 

One sentence only has been preserved of an answer to Fragment of 

* L Pl.NYTl's. 

his Letters, but that is marked by the same spiritual tone. 
The few words in which Pinytus asks for further instruc- 
tion tend to shew that the familiar use of Apostolic lan- 
guage was a characteristic not of the man but of the age. Heb. v. 12-14. 
He urges Dionysius to ' impart at some time more solid food, 
'tenderly feeding the people committed to him with a . 
1 Letter of riper instruction, lest by continually dwelling on 
\ milk-like teaching they should insensibly grow old without 
'advancing beyond the teaching of babes 3 .' The whole 
passage is built out of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and 
throughout the Letter, Eusebius adds, the orthodoxy of 
the faith of Pinytus was most accurately reflected. 

If our records be scanty, at least they have been found The value of 

. T v these frag- 

hitherto to be harmonious. It may seem ot little 1m- Mate 
portance to note passing coincidences with Scripture; 
and yet when it is observed that all the fragments 
which have been examined in this section do not 
amount to more than thirty lines, they prove more clearly 

1 Cf. p. 165, note 5. rp o<f> 775 TC^eioripot 5 ypdfj.jj.aaiv 

2 Euseb. Lc.:...tovs avLSvras aoe\- iaavdis rbv \nr' avr<$ \abv virodpi- 
(povs d>s T€Kva it a Trip (piXoaropyos \pavra, ws aitj SiarAous rots ya\a- 
(cf. Rom. xii. 10) 7rapa/ca\u)i/. KT&oeaLv tvoLaTpipovres X6701S rrj 

3 Euseb. Lc.:...avTnrapaKa\€'i 5£ vniriwdei aywyrj Xddouv Karaynpd- 
(TTepportpas rjd-n irork fieTadidovai cravrej. Cf. Hebr. v. 12 — 14. 



168 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. II. 



A general 
view of the 
Church 
necessary 
to the right 
criticism of 
individual 
writers. 



The condition 
of the Church 
of Rome at the 
middle of the 
second cen- 
tury. 



than anything else could do how completely the words of 
the Apostles were infused into the minds of Christians. 
They offer an exact parallel to modern usage in quoting 
the New Testament, and so far justify us in attributing 
our own views of the worth of the Apostolic Scriptures to 
the first Fathers; for as they treated them in the same 
manner as we do, they could hardly have rated them less 
highly. 

§ 10. Hermas. 

As we draw nearer to the close of this transitional 
period in the history of Christianity, it becomes of the 
utmost importance to notice every sign of the intercourse 
and harmony of the different Churches. In the absence of 
fuller records it is necessary to realize the connexion of 
isolated details by the help of such general laws as are 
discoverable upon a comparison of their relations. . The 
task, however difficult, is not hopeless; and in proportion 
as the induction is more accurate and complete, the result 
will give a more trustworthy picture of the time. Even 
when a flood has covered the ordinary landmarks, an ex- 
perienced eye can trace out the great features of the 
country in the few cliffs or currents which diversify the 
waters. This image will give a fair notion of the problem 
which must be solved by any real History of the Church 
of the second century. There is a fact here, a tendency 
there : and little is gained by describing the one or follow- 
ing the other, unless they are referred to the solid founda- 
tion which underlies and explains them. 

This is not the place to attempt to give any outline of 
the history of Christianity. But it is not the less neces- 
sary to regard the different elements which meet at each 
crisis in its course. For the moment Rome is our centre. 
The metropolis of the world becomes the natural meeting- 



I.] Hennas. 169 

place of Christians. There, at the middle of the second chap. ii. 
century 1 , were to be found representatives of distant 
churches and of conflicting sects. At Rome Justin the 
Christian philosopher opened his school, and consecrated 
his teaching by his martyrdom. At Rome Polycarp the 
disciple of St John conferred with Anicetus on the cele- 
bration of Easter, and joined with him in celebrating the 
Eucharist 2 . At Rome Hegesippus a Hebrew Christian of 
Palestine completed, if he did not also commence, the first 
History of the Church. On the other side it was at Rome 
that Valentinus and Cerdo and Marcion sought to propa- 
gate their errors, and met the champions of orthodoxy. 
Nor was this all: while the attractions of the Imperial 
City were powerful in bringing together Christians from 
different lands, the liberality of the Roman Church ex- 
tended its influence abroad. c It has been your custom/ 
Dionysius of Corinth writes to Soter, 'from the first to 
' confer manifold benefits on all the brethren, and to send 
' supplies to the many churches in every city... supporting 
' moreover the brethren who are in the mines;... in this 
' always preserving as Romans a custom handed down to 
'you by your Roman forefathers 3 .' Every thing points to 
a constant intercourse between Christians which was both 
the source and the fruit of union. Heresy was at once 
recognized as such, and convicted by Apostolic tradition. 
The very differences of which we read are a proof of the 
essential agreement between the Churches. The dissen- 
sions of the East and West on the celebration of Easter 
have left a distinct impress on the records of Christianity; 
and it is clear that if the Churches had been divided by any 

1 The space might be limited even (Euseb. //. E. iv. 22 ; Iren. ap. Eu- 

more exactly to the Episcopate of seb. II. E. iv. 11). 

Anicetus (157— j6S A.D.). Hegesip- 2 Iren. ap. Euseb. H.E. v. 24. 

pus came to Rome during thatVime, 8 Dionys. ap. Euseb. II. E. IV. 23. 

and Valentinus was then still alive Routh, I. p. 1 79. 



170 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



CHAP. II. 



Different ele- 
ments com- 
bined in Ca- 
tholicity. 



The charac- 
teristics of 
the Roman 
Church 



graver differences of doctrine, much more if their faith had 
undergone a total revolution, some further traces of these 
momentous facts would have survived than can be found 
in the subtle disquisitions of critics. Once invest Chris- 
tianity with life : let the men whose very personality 
seems to be lost in the fragments which bear their name 
be regarded as busy workers in one great Empire, speaking 
a common language and connected by a common work : 
and the imaginary wars of Judaizing and Pauline factions 
within the Church vanish away. In each city the doctrine 
taught was ' that proclaimed by the Law the Prophets and 
< the Lord V 

These general remarks seem to be necessary before 
any satisfactory examination can be made of the writings 
of Hermas and Hegesippus, which are commonly brought 
forward as unanswerable proofs of the Ebionism of the 
Early Church, and therefore of the impossibility of the 
existence of any Catholic Canon of Holy Scripture. But 
even if it were to be admitted that those Fathers lean 
towards Ebionism, the general character of their age must 
fix some limit to the interpretation of their teaching. 
The real explanation of their peculiarities lies however 
somewhat deeper. While the true unity of the Early 
Churches is to be most firmly maintained, yet nothing 
can be more alien from the right conception of this unity 
than to represent them all as moulded in one type, or 
advanced according to one measure. The freedom of indi- 
vidual development is never destroyed by Catholicity. 
The Eoman Church, in which we have seen collected an 
epitome of Christendom, had yet its own characteristic 
tendency towards form and order. Of this something 
has been said already in speaking of Clement 2 ; but it 



1 Hegesippus ap. Euseb. H.E. IV. 22, 

2 Cf. p. 24. 



Cf. previous page, note 1, 



I.] Hennas. 171 

appears in a simpler and yet maturer form in the Shep- chap. ii. 
herd of Hermas, the next work which remains to witness Jle shepherd 7 

r ., ' of Hermas. 

oi its progress. 

This remarkable book — a threefold collection of Visions The history of 

the Shepherd. 

Commandments and Parables — is commonly published 
among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and was for 
some time attributed to the Hermas saluted by St Paul. Kom. xvi. 14. 
Evidence however both internal and external is decisive 
against a belief in its Apostolic date ; and the mode in 
which this belief gained currency is an instructive exam- 
ple of the formation of a tradition. The earliest mention External evi- 
of the Shepherd is found in the Muratorian fragment on date. ' 
the Canon to which we shall soon revert 1 . The anonymous 
author says : 'Hermas composed the Shepherd very lately 
8 in our times in the city of Rome, while the Bishop Pius 
'his brother occupied the chair of the Roman Church 2 / 
The same statement is repeated in an early Latin poem 
against Marcion, and in a letter ascribed to Pius himself 3 . 
It comes from the place at which the book was written, 
and dates from the age at which it appeared. There is no 
interval of time or separation of country to render it un- 
certain, or suggest that it was a conjecture. But the 
character of the book and its direct claims to inspiration 
gave it an importance which soon obscured its origin. 
The protest of the anonymous author just quoted shews 

1 See below, § 12. given at length. The objections 

2 Pastorem vero nuperrime tern- urged against this evidence by Mr 
poribus nostris in urbe Roma Herma Donaldson (History of Christian Li- 
[Hernias] conscripsit, sedente [in] terature, I. pp. 259 f.) simply rest on 
cathedr& urbis Romse ecclesiae Pio the fact that the Muratorian frag- 
episcopo fratre ejus. Et ideo legi ment as well as the poem is anony- 
eum quidem oportet: se publioare mous. It is difficult to see how this 
vero in ecclesia populo neque inter affects the authority of the state- 
Prophetas completum [completo] nu- ment if the fragment is genuine. A 
mero neque inter Apostolos in finem contemporary Roman writer would 
temporum potest. The fragment is be likely to know more about the 
given at length in App. C. authorship than Origen, who after 

3 Cf. Routh, 1. p. 427 ; Hefele, p. all only offers his opinion as a con- 
LXXXII., where the authorities are jecture. Seepage 173, note 1. 



172 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. ir. 



Origen first 
identifies its 
author vnth 
the Apostolic 
Hermas. 



that this was the case even in his time. ' It should there- 
( fore be read/ he adds, 'but it can never be publicly used in 
'the Church either among the Prophets... or the Apostles V 
In the next generation Irenseus quotes with marked 
respect a passage which is found in the first of the Com- 
mandments, but he does not allude to Hermas by name, 
nor specify the book from which he derived it 2 . Clement 
of Alexandria mentions Hermas three times 3 , but he 
does not distinguish his name by any honorary title, 
and is wholly silent as to his date and position. The 
identification of the author of the Shepherd with his 
namesake in the Epistle to the Romans is due to Origen, 
and is in fact nothing more than a conjecture of his in 
his commentary on the passage in St Paul. 'I fancy/ 
he says, ' that that Hermas is the author of the tract 
f which is called the Shepherd, a writing which seems to 
'me to be very useful, and is, as I fancy, divinely in- 



- 2 Cf. previous page, note 2. 
2 Iren. (iv. 20) ap. Euseb. ff. E. 

V. 8: kclXQs odv elirev ij ypacprj tj 
X^yowra, Hp&rov 7rdvTcou irlvrevjov 
ore eh ia-rlif 6 Qebs 6 ra iravra 
ktI<tcls, koX tcl i%T)s (Pastor, Mand. 
i.). It may be reasonably supposed 
that Hermas here uses words sanc- 
tioned by common usage. 

. 3 Str. 1. 17. 85 ; I. 29. 29; II. 1. 3. 
In three other places he quotes the 
book simply by the title of the 
Shepherd; Str. II. 12. 55 ; IV. 9. 76 ; 

VI. 6. 46. 

The references which Tertullian 
makes to the book (de Pudicitia, cc. 
10, 20) throw no direct light upon 
its date or authorship. He simply 
affirms that it was ' classed by every 
* council of the Churches among the 
' false and Apocryphal books.' The 
original text is important: Cede- 
rem tibi si scriptura Pastoris quae 
sola mcechos armat divino instru- 
mento meruisset incidi, si non ab 
omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam ves- 



trarum inter apocrypha et falsa 
judicaretur, adultera et ipsa et in- 
de patrona sociorum (de Pud. 10). 
Even if due allowance is made for 
the rhetorical character of the pas- 
sage it is evident that the Canonicity 
of books was a question debated in 
Christian assemblies in Tertullian's 
time : that varieties of opinion on 
the Canon existed and were known 
to exist: that the Catholic Canon 
(etiam vestrarum) was more compre* 
hensive than that of sects. In 
other words Marcion was but one 
out of many against whose arbitrary 
judgments the Church maintained 
with regard to Holy Scripture the 
whole truth. Compare de Pudic. 
20 : Et utique receptior apud eccle- 
sias epistola Barnabae (i. e. the Epi- 
tle to the Hebrews) illo apocrypho 
Pastore mcechorum. Here two dis- 
puted books are placed side by side, 
and a balance of external authority 
struck. 



I.] Hennas. 173 

' spired 1 .' If there had been any historic evidence for the chap. ii. 
statement it could scarcely have escaped Origen's know- 
ledge, and had he known any he would not have spoken 
as he does. When the conjecture was once made it satis- 
fied curiosity and supplied the place of more certain infor- 
mation. But though it foujid acceptance, it acquired no 
new strength. Eusebius and Jerome, the next writers 
who repeat ' the report,' do not confirm it by any indepen- 
dent authority 2 . It remained to the last a mere hypo- 
thesis, and cannot stand against the direct assertion of a 
contemporary. 

Internal evidence alone is sufficient to prove that the The character 
Shepherd could not have been written in the Apostolic 



age. The whole tone and bearing shews that it is of the 

same date as Montanism; and the view which it opens of 

church discipline, government, and ordinances, can scarcely 

belong to an earlier period 3 . Theologically the book is of its theological 

the highest value, as shewing in what way Christianity 

was endangered by the influence of Jewish principles as 

distinguished from Jewish forms. The peril arose not 

1 Orig. Coram, in Rom. Lib. X. 31. troductce (Sim. ix. n). 

Puto tamen quod Hermas iste sit (/3) The account of the Orders in 

scriptor libelli ejus qui Pastor appel- the Church ( Vis. iii. 5). 

latur, quae scriptura valde mihi utilis (7) The teaching on Baptism (Sim. 

videtur et ut puto divinitus in- ix. 16) as necessary even for the 

spirata. He then goes on to explain Patriarchs. The revival, in Mor- 

the omission of any remark upon his monism of this belief is one of many 

name, shewing that he is speaking singular coincidences with early 

from conjecture and not from know- errors which that system exhibits, 

ledge. In § 24 he raises the ques- The direct historical data are few. 

tion whether Apelles (Rom. xvi. 10) The Church had endured much per- 

be not identical with Apollos. Cf. secution (Fit. iii. 2), which was not 

Horn, in Luc. xxv. yet over, and was conducted deli- 

2 Euseb. if. E. III. 3 (<paaiv). berately and not merely in popular 
Hieron. de Virr. III. c. 10 (asserunt). outbursts (Vis. iii. 6; Vis. iv. ; Sim. 

3 The following appear to be some ix. 28). The Apostles were already 
of the weightiest proofs of its late dead (Sim. ix. 16). It is uncertain 
date: whether the introduction of * Cle- 

(a) The teaching on penitence mens and Grapte ' ( Vis. ii. 4) is part 

(Vis. iii. 7 ; Mand. iv. t : Sim. vii.), of the fiction of the book, or spiritu- 

and fasting (Sim. v.). The allusions ally symbolic. Origen (Philoc. I. 

to stationes (Sim. v. 1), and subin- 11) interprets it in the latter sense. 



174 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. from the recollection of the old but from the organization 
of the new: its centre was not at Jerusalem but at Rome. 
At Jerusalem Christian doctrine was grafted on the 
Jewish ritual; but at Rome a Judaizing spirit was busy 
Legal m tone, in moulding a substitute for the Mosaic system 1 . The 
daizing. one error was necessarily of short continuance ; the other 
must continue to try the Church even to the end. This 
' legal ' view of Christianity is not without a Scriptural 
basis; but here again the contrast between the harmo- 
nious subordination of the elements of Scripture and the 
partial exaggerations of early patristic writings is most 
Relation to apparent. The Shepherd bears the same * relation to the 
ftja v mt l !° f E P ist le of St James as the Epistle of Barnabas to that to 
the Hebrews 2 . The idea of a Christian Law lies at the 
bottom of them both: but according to St James it is 
a law of liberty, centering in man's deliverance from cor- 
ruption within and ceremonial without; while Hermas 
rather looks for its essence in the rites of the outward 
Church. Both St James and Hermas insist on the ne- 
cessity of works ; but the one regards them as the prac- 
tical expression of a personal faith, while the other finds 

1 Hermas uses the number twelve naldson's arguments (i. p. 309) prove 

to symbolize the universality of the too much, for Cod. Sinait. dates from 

Church — the spiritual Israel, ra 6pi) a period within 'the first five centu- 

ravra ra .dudefca <pv\ai dcriv at /car- 'ries of the Christian era.' 
oiKovacu 8\ou rbv koct^ov (Sim. ix. 2 Cf. p. 40. The Epistle of St 

17). The common Latin text gives James, as has been often noticed, is 

• Duodecim montes...duodecim sunt remarkable for allusions to nature, 

gentes, and the repeated 5c65e/ca and so also is the writing of Her- 

might easily have fallen out of the mas ; he says at the opening of his 

Greek text ; but the word is not Visions : ido^a^ou rds Kriaeis rod 

found in Cod. Palat. The passage Qeov 8tl /meydXai /cat dvvarat Kal 

itself points to the true interpre- evirpeweh elcriv. The beauty of lan- 

tation of Apoc. vii. guage and conception in many parts 

I have given the Greek text of of the Shepherd has never been suf- 

the quotations from the Shepherd. ficiently appreciated. Much of it 

The discovery of the Codex Sinaiti- may be compared with the Pilgrim's 

cus has placed the substantial au- Progress, and higher praise than this 

thenticity of Simonides' copy be- cannot be given to a book of its 

yond all reasonable doubt. Mr Do- kind. 



I.] Hernias. 175 

in them an intrinsic value and recognizes the possibility chap. ii. 
of supererogatory virtue 1 . Still throughout the Shepherd 
the Lawgiver is Christ and not Moses. It contains no 
allusion to the institutions of Judaism, even while insist- 
ing: on ascetic observances. And so far from exhibiting 
the predominance of Ebionism in the Church, it is a 
protest against it ; inasmuch as it is an attempt to satisfy 
by a purely legal view of the Gospel itself the feelings to 
which Ebionism appealed. It consists as it were of a 
system of Christian ethics based on ecclesiastical ideas. 

The Shepherd contains no definite quotation from scriptural 

, (illuaioiUi. 

either Old or New Testament. The single reference by 
name is to a phrase in an obscure Apocryphal book Eldad 
and Modat, which is found in an ironical sentence ap- 
parently directed against the misuse made of it 2 . The 
scope of the writer gave no opportunity for the direct 
application of Scripture. He claims to receive a divine 
message, and to record the words of Angels. His know- 
ledge of the New Testament can then only be shewn by 
passing coincidences of language, and these do in fact occur 
throughout the book. The allusions to the Epistle of St 
James 3 and to the Apocalypse 4 are naturally most fre- Apocalypse. 

1 Sim. v. 3 : edv ye tl ayadbv ttolt)- to see how any difficulty could have 

crjs €ktos ttjs evroXrjs tov Qeov aeav- been found in the reading. The 

r<£ 7repLToir)<rr) oo^av irepicrcroTepav sense of the passage seems to be : 

kclI ear) evdo^orepos Trapa tu Geo; You may if you please deny Christ 

ov £ue\\es elvai. Cf. Mand. iv. 4, again in persecution, vainly relying 

in connexion with 1 Cor. vii. 39, 40. on general promises of repentance. 

. - Vis. ii. 3: 'Epels de Ma£Jjp4>, 'I- Cf. Numb. xi. 26, 27. 
Sou 6\i^L$ ^px^~ar edv aoi <pavrj 3 The coincidences of Hermas with 

ira\iv apvrjaai (1. dpvrjaaL)' iyyirs kv- St James are too numerous to be 

ptos roh eTri(TTp€(pofievoLS, d>s yeypa- enumerated at length. Whole sec- 

irrai ev ry 'E\5d5 koX 3Ia;5dr rots tions of the Shepherd are framed with 

7rpo(pr)Tev(ra<TLv ev rjf ep-rj/JLcp tQ ^a<£. evident recollection of St Jam 

So Cod. Sinait. The reading Mo££- Epistle: e.g. Vis. iii. 9 ; Maud, ii., 

pop is also given by Cod. Pcdat., and ix., xf. ; Sim. v.. 4. Of the shorter 

there can be no doubt that it is cor- passages one or two examples will 

rect. In form the message corre- suffice: Mand. xii. 5, 6 = James iv. 

sponds with the commissions to Cle- 7, 12; Sim. viii. 6 = James ii. 7. 
ment and Grapte which follow in 4 The symbolism of the Apoca- 

the next section, and it is very hard lypse reappears in the Sliephcrd. The 



176 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



CHAP. II. 
The Gospels. 



St John. 
The Acts. 



i Peter. 

The relation 
of Hermas to 
St Paul. 



His doctrine 
of Faith. 



quent, since the one is most closely connected with the 
Shepherd by its tone, and the other by its form. The 
numerous paraphrases of our Lord's words prove that 
Hermas was familiar with some records of His teaching 1 . 
That these were no other than our Gospels is at least 
rendered probable by the fact that he makes no reference 
to any Apocryphal narrative : and the opinion is confirmed 
by clear allusions to St John 2 and the Acts 3 . In several 
places also St John's teaching on ' the Truth ' lies at the 
ground of Hermas' words 4 ; and the parallels with the 
First Epistle of St Peter are well worthy of notice 5 . The 
relation of Hermas to St Paul is interesting and import- 
ant. His peculiar object, as well as perhaps his turn of 
mind, removed him from any close connexion with the 
Apostle; but their divergence has been strangely exagge- 
rated. In addition to marked coincidences of language 
with the First Epistle to the Corinthians and with that to 
the Ephesians 6 , Hermas distinctly recognizes the great 
truth which is commonly regarded as the characteristic 
centre of St Paul's teaching, ' Faith,' he says, ' is the 
6 first of the seven virgins by which the Church is sup- 
' ported. She keeps it together by her power; and by 
' her the elect of God are saved. Abstinence the second 
'virgin is her daughter; and the rest are daughters one 
i of the other. And when the Christian observes the 



Church is represented under the 
figure of a woman (Apoc. xii. i ; Vis, 
ii. 4), a bride (Apoc. xxi. 2 ; Vis. iv. 
2) : her enemy is a great beast (Apoc. 
xii. 4; Vis. iv. 2). The account of 
the building the tower (Vis. iii. 5) 
and of the array of those who enter- 
ed into it (Sim. viii. 2, 3) is to be 
compared with Apoc. xxi. 14 ; vi. 1 1 ; 
vii. 9, 14. 

1 The Similitudes generally deserve 
to be accurately compared with the 
Gospel Parables. Cf. Matt. xiii. 5 



— 8, with Sim. ix. 19, 20, 21: Matt, 
xiii. 31, 32, with Sim. viii. 3; Matt, 
xviii. 3, with Sim. ix. 29. Of other 
passages compare Matt. x. 33 with 
Vis. ii. 2. 

2 See next page. 

3 Vis. iv. 2 = Acts iv. 12. 

4 Mand. iii. = 1 John ii. 27 ; iv. 6. 

5 Vis. iv. 3=1 Pet. i. 7; Vi*, iv. 
2 = 1 Pet. v. 7. 

6 Sim. v. 7=1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; 
Sim. ix. 1 3 = Eph. iv. 4 ; Mand. iii. 
(cf. Mand. x. 1) = Eph. iv. 30. 



I-] 



Hennas. 



i i 



' works of their mother, lie is able to live 1 / Clement of chap. ii. 
Alexandria paraphrasing the passage says: ' Faith pre- 
cedes: Fear edifies: Love perfects 2 / Whatever maybe 
Hennas' teaching on works, this passage alone is sufficient 
to prove that he assigned to Faith its true position in the 
Christian Economy. The Law, as he understands it, is 
implanted only in the minds of those who have believed 3 . 

The view which Hernias rives of Christ's nature and Chr-sto: 

. -, . . Of Hermas in. 

work is no less harmonious with Apostolic doctrine, and connexion 

r with St Jobn. 

it offers striking analogies to the Gospel of Si; John. 
Not only did the Son ' appoint Angels to preserve each of 
'those whom the Father gave to Him ;' but ' He Himself 
'toiled very much and suffered very much to cleanse 
'our sins... And so when He Himself had cleansed the 
'sins of the people, He shewed them the paths of life 
'by giving them the Law which He received from His 
'Father 4 .' He is 'a Eock higher than the mountains, 
'able to hold the whole world, ancient, and yet having 
' a new gate 



5 > 



His name is great and. infinite, and the 



1 Vis. iii. 8 : 6 irvpyos (the symbol 
of the Church) v-irb rovrcov fiavrd^e- 
rai /car' iirtray^v rod KVplov' &kov€ 
vvv ras ivepyeias avr&v. tj jaev irpuj- 
rij avrQv 7) Kparovaa ras %e?/oas ITt- 
<rrts /caXelrat" did ravrrjs \ravrrfv 
Coel. Sinait.) ad^ovrac 61 b:\eKrol 
rod 6eov. 7) 8e irepa 7] irepiefacrfit- 
vq kclX dvdpi^ofievr) ''EtyKpareta AraXe?- 
rai' avTTj 8vydrj]p iarlv rijs Hicrreojs 
....a! be erepai....Trevre....6vyar€pes 
d\\rj\icv €1<tL...otclv ovv rd epya rijs 
/L'.rjTpos clvtlcp irdvra Troirjcrrjs dvva- 
cai ^rjcrai. For the last clause Cod. 
Palat. gives omnes poteris vklere, and 
the common text omnia poteris cus- 
todire. In the former videre is an 
obvious mistake for riverc, omnes 
being taken with operas (sic Palat): 
the latter is a distinct reading. 

3 Clem. Sir. II. 12: Jlporjy urat 
fj.h irians, <pbfios dk oi/cc5o/u?, re- 
Xetot bk 7] dydnTj. 

C. 



3 Sim. viii. 3 : 6 de ciyye\o^ 6 fie- 
7<xs Kal hdo^os MtxaryX 6 €X& V ttjv 
e^ovcriav rovrov rod \aod Kal diaKv- 
(3epvQv ovros ydp icrrtv 6 didois av- 
rols rbv vbixov els ras Kapdias rCcv 

7TL<TT€v6vr(jJV. €iri<7K€TrT€TaL OVV aVTOS 

oh gduKev el dpa r€rr)pr]Kao~Lv a 

4 Sim. v. 6: Kal avrbs ras a,aap- 
rlas TifiCcv €KaQdpL<je iroWd Koiridaas 
Kal 7roXXoi)s kottovs tjvtXtjkus' ... av- 
rbs ovv Kadapiaas ras ajmaprias rod 
\aod Zdet^ev avroTs ras rpifiovs rr,s 
fwjs dovs airols rbv vo/jlov 6v eXa^e 
irapa row irarpbs avrov. 

5 Sim. ix. 2 : £'5a£e p.01 irfrpav /ae- 
ydXrjv \evKi]v t'/c rod irediov dvaSeSrj- 
KivaC 7] bk irhpa v'^rfKortpa rjv rQv 
opicov rerpdyuvos ware owavBai 6- 
\ov rbv Kbajiov xcop^crat (susiinere 
Int. Lat.) iraXala dt i)v 7/ irerpa 

€K€iv7] 7TV\t]V iKK€KOpL/J.^V7]V ^X 0V<Ta ' " S 

Trpba<paros d£ idoKei. /jlol thai. 77 £k- 
KuXa^ts rijs ttv\t]s. i) d£ 7tv\t] ov- 

N 



178 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. < whole world is supported by Him 1 / ' He is older than 
' creation, so that He took counsel with the Father about 
'the creation which He made 2 .' 'He is the sole way of 
' access to the Lord ; and no one shall enter in unto Hirn 
'otherwise than by His Son 3 / To Hernias, that is to the 
Christian of these later times, He appears ' by the Spirit 
' in the form of the Church 4 / 
False views of It would be difficult to find a more complete contrast 

his doctrine: . _r • -i i 

to Jiibiomsm than these passages afford. Hennas indeed 
could never have been charged with favouring such a 
heresy unless the manifold developments of Christian 
character had been forgotten. His tendency towards 
legalism — a tendency peculiar to no time and no dis- 
pensation — was first transformed into an adherence to 
Jewish legalism ; this was next identified with Ebionism; 
and then it only remained to explain away such phrases 
as were irreconcileable with the doctrines which it was 
assumed that he must of necessity have held. True 
criticism reverses the process, and sets down every ele- 
ment of the problem before it attempts a solution. Then 
it is seen how truly the teaching of St Paul and St John 

reus £o~TL\(3ev virep top tjXiov dare pie rod Beod fj.tya earl Kal dx&pr\rov Kal 

6avp,d£eiv eirl rjj Xapnrporrjri rr)s wjj- rbv Kbafiov 6\ov (3aardfci. 
Xrjs. 2 Sim, ix. 12: quoted above. 

Sim. ix. 12 : 77 irtrpa, (prjaiv, avrrj 3 Sim. ix. J 2 : 77 de irijXrj 6 vlbs rod 

Kal i) 7rv\r) 6 vlbs rod deov eari. HcDs, deov earlv avrrj /mla eiaodos iari irpbs 

t (prjfML, Kvpie, i] irtrpa iraXaia eariv rbv Kvpiov. dXXcos odv ovdels eiaeXeti- 

7) de 7nj\rj Kaivr); "A/coue, <pr\ai, Kal o~erai irpbs avrov ei pirj did rod vlov 

ctivie daijvere. '0 fxev vlbs rod deov avrov. 

irdarfs rr)s Kriaeoos avrov irpoyeveare- 4 Sim. ix. 1 : ...8aa aoi e'dei^e rb 
pbs eartv, ware atipipovXov avrov ye- irvev/xa rb XaXrjaav /xera aod ev fjiop- 
viadai to; irarpl rrjs Kriaeojs avrov. <pfj rrjs 'EKKXrjalas ' eKeivo yap rb 
did rovro Kal iraXaios eariv. 'H be rrvedfia 6 vlbs rod deov iariv. The 
7rvXrj did rl Kaivr), (prjjml, Kijpie ; "On, conception is well worthy of notice. 
(prjaiv, eV eaxdrajv rG>v rjfiepwv rrjs This is however not the place to enter 
awreXelas cpavepbs kyhero, did rovro into the details of Hennas' doctrine 
Kaivr] eytvero ij irvXrj, ha 61 [xtXXov- of the Trinity — especially of the rela- 
xes adifcadai di avrrjs els rrjv /3acrt- tion of the Son to the Holy Spirit. 
Xeiav elaeXduai rod deov. Cf. Dorner, I. 195 ff. 
1 Sim. ix. 14 : rb vvopia rod vlov 



I.] Hegesippus. 179 

is recognized in the Shepherd, though that of St James chap. ii. 
gives the tone to the whole. The personality of its 
author is clearly marked, but his peculiar opinions do not 
degenerate* into heresy. The book is distinguished from 
the writings of the Apostles by the undue preponder- 
ance of one form of Christian truth ; from those of heretics 
by the admission of all. 

V 

§ ii. Hegesippus. 

The name of Hegesippus has become a watchword ThtrdaH 
for those who find in early Church history a fatal chasm to jsmqiUh*. 

in the unity of Christian truth which is implied in Holy 
Scripture. It has been maintained that he is the repre- 
sentative and witness of the Ebionism of ' the Twelve ' or 
rather of 'the Three/ the resolute opponent of St Paul 1 . 
Many circumstances lend plausibility to the statement. 
Every influence of birth and education likely to predis- 
pose to Ebionism is allowed to have existed in his case. 
. He was it appears of Hebrew descent 2 ? conversant 
with Jewish history, and a zealous collector of the early 
traditions of , his Church. The well-known description 
which he gives of the martyrdom of St James the Just 
shews how highly he regarded ritual observances in a 
Jew, and with what simple reverence he dwelt on every 
detail which marked the zeal of the ' Bishop of the Cir- 
1 cumcisionV It is probable that he felt that same de- 
voted attachment to his nation which was characteristic of 
St Paul no less than of the latest Hebrew convert of our 
own time 4 ; but of Ebionism as distinguished from the 

1 In this as in many other in- 3 Euseb. IT.E.u. 23. Routh, 1. 
stances later critics have only re- 20S ff. The details however of his 
vived an old controversy. Cf. Luin- life are not all drawn from Xazaritic 
per, in. 117 ff.; Bull maintained asceticism. 

the true view in answer to Z wicker. 4 It is strange that the conduct 

2 Euseb. H.E. iv. 22. Cf. p. 1S3, of St Paul is not more frequent! 
n. 2. taken as a commentajy on his teach- 

N 2 



180 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [pakt 



CHAP. II. 



JEusebius* 
testimony 
to his or- 
thodoxy. 



His inquiries 

in foreign 



natural feelings of a Jew we find no trace in his views 
either of the Old Covenant or of the Person of Christ. 
There is not one word in the fragments of his own 
writings or in what others relate of him which indicates 
that he looked upon the Law as of universal obligation, 
or indeed as binding upon any after the destruction of 
the Temple. There is not one word which implies that he 
differed from the Catholic view of c Christ' the 'Saviour' 
and the ' Door' of access to God. The general tone of his 
language authorizes no such deductions ; and what we 
know of his life excludes them. 

It is not necessary however to determine his opinions 
by mere negations. Eusebius, who was acquainted with 
his writings, has given the fullest testimony to his 
Catholic doctrine by classing him with Dionysius, Pinytus, 
and Irenaeus, among those 'champions of the truth 1 ' 
whose 'orthodoxy and sound faith conformable to the 
'Apostolic tradition was shewn by their writings 2 .' He- 
gesippus in fact proves that the faith which we have 
already recognized in its essential features at Ephesus, 
Corinth, and Rome, was indeed the faith of Christen- 
dom. 

Not being content to examine the records of his native 
Church only, Hegesippus undertook a journey to Rome 3 , 



ing. Apart from the testimonies in 
the Acts, St Paul himself says in 
an Epistle universally acknowledged 
that he became as a Jew to the Jews 
(i Cor. ix. 20). The whole relation 
of the Church to the Synagogue in 
the Apostolic age requires a fresh 
investigation. 

1 Euseb. H. E. IV. 7, 8 : irapr\yev 
els fxecrou 77 dXrjdeia 7r\eiovs eavrrjs 
V7r€pfjidxovs...dL > iyy pdtpojv dirohei'£ewv 
Kara rCov ddicov alpiaewv arparevo- 
fifrovs' ev toijtois iypioplfero Ml 777- 
anriros... 

2 Euseb. H. E. iv. 21 : &v koX els 



rjfjids rrjs dTToaToXiKTJs irapaddcreojs rj 
rod vyiovs Trlcrreajs Zyypacpos KarrjX- 
6eu 6p6o5o£La. On such a point the 
evidence of Eusebius is conclusive. 

3 This journey took place during 
the bishopric of Anicetus (157 — 168 
a.d. Euseb. H.E. IV. n), and He- 
gesippus appears to have continued 
at Home till the time of Eleutherius 
(177— 190 A.D.). The Paschal Chro- 
nicle fixes his death in the reign of 
Commodus (Lumper, 111. 108). Je- 
rome speaks of him {ale Virr. III. 
12) as vicinus Apostolicorum tempo- 
rum, so rendering, as it appears, the 



I-] 



Hegesippus, 



181 



and visiting many bishops on his way ' found everywhere chap. ii. 
'the same doctrine 1 / Among other places he visited ^issjld. 
Corinth, where he was refreshed by the right principles 
(dp06s X0709) in which the Church had continued up to 
the time of his visit 2 . What these 'right principles' 
were is evident from the fact that he found there the 
Epistle of Clement, which was still read in the public 
services 3 . The witness of Hegesippus is thus invested 
with new importance. He not only proves that there was 
one rule of faith in his time, but also that it had been 
preserved in unbroken succession from the first age 4 . 
His inquiries confirmed the fact which we have seen 
personified in the life of Polycarp, that from the time of 
St John to that of Irenseus the Creed of the Church was 
essentially unchanged. 

Hegesippus embodied the results of his investigations Theci^^r 
in five Books or Memoirs. These according to Jerome 
formed a complete history of the Church from the death 
of our Lord to the time of their composition ; but this 
statement is probably made from a misunderstanding of 
Eusebius, who says that Hegesippus ' wrote Memoirs in 



5 of hu Mtii.oir.T. 



phrase of Eusebius eirl rrjs 7rp<J)T7]s 
t&v diroaroXcov yevofxevos diadoxvjs 
(H.E. 11. 23). This would repre- 
sent him as a younger contemporary 
of Polycarp. 

1 Euseb. H. E. IV. 22: rrjv avrrjv 
irapa ttolvtup irapelX^cpe di5a.o~Ka.XLav. 

2 Euseb. If. E. IV. 22: /cat eire- 
Lievev 77 Kopivdiuv ev ry opdtp Xo7^ 
fJiexpL HpLp.ov €7rio~K07revovTOS ev Ko- 
plvdio' oh avvepa^a. irXtuv etVPu^i' 
/cat o~vvb~i€TpL^pa rots Kopivdlois 7)/uue- 
pas iKavas' ev ah avvaveirdrjLiev rtp 
opdui Aoyy. 

3 Euseb. I.e. Cf. H.E. m. 16; 
and p. 164. The Catholic character 
of Clement's Epistle, with the clear 
recognition of the Apostolic dignity 
of St Paul which it contains (see 



pp. 22, 23, 51), gives peculiar force 
to this casual testimony. 

4 Euseb. I.e.: ev eKdarrj fie dia- 
doxfi (in each episcopal succession) 
/cat ev eKaarr} iroXei ovtus ^x €l &s 
6 vopLos KTjpvTTei /cat ol irpocprjTat. kclI 
6 Kvpios. This last phrase has been 
already noticed as occurring in the 
Syriac Epistles of Clement (p. 163), 
which alone shews the error of Cred- 
ner's supposition that the use of 
Kvpios precludes the Canonical au- 
thority of the Epistl* J t. d. 
N. T. Kanon,j>. 35. Compare Dr 
Lightfoot, on Galatians, p. 311. 

5 Dc Virr. III. I.e. :...omn< 
passione Domini usque ad Buam 
aetatem Ecclesiasticorum Actuum 
texens historias... 



182 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [pakt 

chap ii. 'five Books of the unerring tradition of the Apostolic 
' message in a very simple style 1 / 'leaving in these/ as he 
adds in another place, 'a very full record of his own 
* opinion 2 .' It appears then that his object was theological 
rather than historical. He sought to make out the one- 
ness and continuity of Apostolic doctrine ; and to this end 
he recorded the succession of bishops in each Church, 
with such illustrative details as the subject required 3 . 
Traces of The compilation of such a book of Chronicles gave 

guage^nthT little opportunity for the quotation of Scripture ; but in 
which remain, the absence of direct reference to the historical books of 
the New Testament it is interesting to observe the in- 
fluence of their language on the fragments of Hegesippus 
which survive. There are forms of expression correspond- 
ing to passages in the Gospels of St Matthew and St 
Luke and in the Acts which can scarcely be attributed 
to chance 4 ; and when he speaks of 'the Door of Jesus' 
in his account of the death of St James, there can be 

1 Euseb. H. E. TV. 8 : ev irevre 877 e'pxeo'OaL for epx^^^ov cf.p. 124, 
ovv <rvyy papLpainv ovros rr\v dirXavr) n. 1. At/catos el teal irpoacoTrov ov 
TrapddccTLu rod airoaroXiKOv Kvptiy- Xapi(3dveis. This phrase irp. Xap,. 
puaros airXovcrrdrrj crvvrd^ei ypacpijs only occurs in Luke xx. 1 1 and Gal. 
v-wopjvr\p.ari(Tdpevos... ii. 6. Mdprvs ovtos dXndiis'Iovdai- 

2 Euseb. H. E. TV. 22: ev irevre 01s re /cat "EXXt]o~i yeyevnrai ore 'I77- 
rots els 7)[ias eXOovaiv VTrop.vrjfj.aaL govs 6 Xptcrros io~ri. Cf. Acts xx. 21. 
rrjs Idias yvd>pL7)s irXrjpecrrdrrjv pvr\p,r\v The last words of St James as re- 
KaraXeXonrev. corded by Hegesippus are still more 

3 The arrangement of his Memoirs remarkable : rjp'^avro Xtdafciv avrbv 
cannot have been purely chronolo- errel KarafiXndeis ovk diridavev, dXXa 

"gical, for the account of the martyr- arpa<pels tOnice rd ybvara X£yW 

dom of St James the Just is taken Ilapa/caXtD Kvpte dee irdrep defies 

from the fifth book. There is no avrots, ov yap otdaai n ttoiovgiv. 

definite quotation from any earlier The last clause agrees verbally with 

book. Luke xxiii. 34. In the Clementine 

4 The chief passages occur in the Homilies the text is given: Xldrep 
account of the martyrdom of St d<pes avrois ras dp.aprlas avrcov, ov 
James: Euseb. IT. E. II. 23. ['0 yap otdacriv a iroiovtnv (xi. 20). 

vlos rod avOp&Trov] KaQnrai ev rep It is to be noticed that he refers 

ovpavcp ix de^tQv rrjs p,eydXns dvvd- to Herod's fear of Christ, recorded 

/xews /cat p.e'XXet fyxeadaL eirl rCov ve- in Matt, ii., which chapter was not 

(fieXQv rod ovpavov. Cf. Matt. xxvi. found in the Ebionite Gospel: see 

64. Eor the variation /cat ftAXei Euseb. H. E. III. 20. 



I.] 



Hegesippus. 



1S3 



little doubt tliat lie alludes to the language of our Lord chap. ii. 
recorded by St John 1 . 

It appears however that Hegesippus did not exclu- nis we of 

- i r* • t • • a i • • , Apocryphal 

sively use Canonical writings. As a historian he naturally bocks. 
sought for information from every source ; and the Apo- 
cryphal Gospels were likely to contain many details suited 
to his purpose. It is not strange then that Eusebius says 
that 'he sets forth certain things from the Gospel ac- 
' cording to the Hebrews and the Syriac [Gospel] and 
' especially from the Hebrew language ; thus shewing that 
* he was a Christian of Hebrew descent ; and he mentions 
1 other facts moreover, as it was likely that he would do, 
' from unwritten Jewish tradition 2 / He went beyond the 



1 It has been supposed that He- 
gesippus in a Fragment given in 
Photius, Bibl. 232, alludes to a pas- 
sage in St Paul (1 Cor. ii. 9) as 
i vainly said' and contrary to our 
Lord's words (Matt. xiii. 16). It is 
enough to answer that the passage 
in question is quoted by St Paul 
from the Old Testament (Isa. lxiv. 
4, kclOws yeypairTcu), and that it is 
immediately followed by rjfxlv be aire- 
K&\v\pev k.t.\. Hegesippus evidently 
refers to some sect (rovs ravra 0a- 
fxevovs) who claimed for themselves 
the true and sole possession of spi- 
ritual mysteries. Cf. Eouth, I. pp. 
281, 282 : Dr Lightfoot, onGalatians, 
p. 31 in. The quotation is said to 
have been found in the Ascensio 
Esaice and the Apocahjpsis El ice. Cf. 
Routh, I.e. ; Dorner, 1. 228. It is 
very common in early Christian 
writings ; and it has been supposed 
that it was incorporated in a very 
ancient, perhaps Apostolic, Christian 
Hymn. 

The fact that Eusebius does not 
expressly quote Hegesippus as re- 
cognizing the Pauline Epistles has 
been supposed to shew that he dis- 
allowed their authority. The argu- 
ment is worthless. The method of 



Eusebius is in every case most de- 
sultory. Even when giving an ex- 
press account of the references of 
Irenseus to the books of the New Tes- 
tament, he omits all mention of these 
Epistles, though they are quoted on 
almost every page (H. E. v. 8). 
Elsewhere {H. E. v. 26) he himself 
refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews 
as used by him. 

In one passage Eusebius {H. E. 
III. 32) quoting Hegesippus freely 
uses the phrase rj xf/evbuvvfios yvQacs 
(1 Tim. vi. 20), but it cannot be 
certain that the words stood so in 
the original text. 

2 Euseb. H.E. iv. 22: €K re rod 
Kaff* 'E/Spa/ofs evayyeXlov kcll tov 

ZvplCLKOV ATCU iblOOS 6K TTJS "E^pCLi'doS 

bia\€KTOv nva Tidija-Lif, eiMpaivwv e£ 
'E/3/)atW eavTov TreTTLGTevKevai- kclI 
&X\a be us dv e£ 'lovba'tK^s aypd<pov 
Trapaboaecjs pLPrj/xovevei. By to Zu- 
Picikou we must I think understand 
the Aramaic recension of the Gospel 
according to St Matthew. Melito, 
as Houth has observed, speaks of 6 
Zi''/)os Kal 6 'E^palos in reference to 
a reading in the LXX. whtre the 
natural meaning is the Syrian trans- 
lation (translator) and the Hebrew 
original. 



184 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. ii. range of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New 
Testament. Tradition helped him in one case, and un- 
authoritative writings in the other. Bat he did not there- 
fore disallow the Canon, or cast aside all criticism ; for in 
immediate connexion with the words last quoted we read 
4 that when determining about the so-called Apocrypha he 
' records that some of the books were forged in his own 
c time by certain heretics 1 .' There is indeed nothing to 
shew distinctly that he refers to the Apocryphal books 
of the New Testament, but there is nothing to limit his 
words to the Old ; and when he speaks of the teaching 
of 'the Lord' in the same manner as ( of "the Law and 
f of the Prophets 2 / he clearly implies the existence of 
some written record of its substance. No further direct 
evidence however remains to identify this with the sum 
of our Canonical books, unless we accept the conjecture 
of a distinguished scholar of our own day, who has gone 
so far as to assert that the anonymous Fragment which 
will be the subject of the next section is in fact a trans- 
lation from c the historical work of HegesippusV 



§ 12, The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon — 
Melito — Claudius Apollinaris. 

fZS a of a the -A- n °tice of the Latin Fragment on the Canon, first 

Canine de published by Muratori in his Antiquitates Italicce*, forms 



- 1 Euseb. I. c: kcll 7repl tQu Xeyo- 
jihiav d£ airoKp{)(f)wv tiakafxpavuv, 
iwl t&v avrov xpbvwv irpbs nvuv al- 
peTiK&v apa7reir\d(Tdcu rwa to^tuu 
larope?. 

55 Cf. p. 181, n. 4. 

3 Bunsen's Hippolyius, I. p. 314. 
The evidence of the Clementines is 
noticed below in Chap. IV. § 2. 

4 Antiquit. Ital. Med. jEvi, ill. 
851 sqq. (Milan, 1740). The best 
edition of the fragment is in Routh, 
Hell. Sacrce, 1. 394 sqq. (ed. 1846), 



who obtained a fresh collation of 
the Manuscript. Credner has also 
examined it in his Zur Geschichte 
desKanons, Ji sqq. (1847), and again 
in his posthumous Geschichte des 
N. T. Kanon, i860, to which the 
editor (G. Volkmar) has added an 
Appendix of his own upon the text 
and interpretation of this ' Tractate 1 
as he prefers to call it. The com- 
plete text and context of the Frag- 
ment is given in App. C. 



!•] 



The Canon of Muratori. 



185 



a natural close to this part of our inquiry. This precious chap. ii. 
relic was discovered in the Ambrosian Library at Milan in 
a Manuscript of the seventh or eighth century, which 
originally belonged to Columban's great Monastery at 
Bobbio 1 . It is mutilated both at the beginning and end; 
and is disfigured throughout by remarkable barbarisms, 
due in part to the ignorance of the transcriber, and in 
part to the translator of the original text; for there can 
be little doubt that it is a version from the Greek. But 
notwithstanding these defects it is of the greatest interest 
and importance. Enough remains to indicate the limits 
which its author assigned to the Canon ; and the general 
sense is sufficiently clear to shew the authority which he 
claimed for it. 

The date of the composition of the fragment is given The date of its 
by the allusion made in it to Hernias, which has been 
already quoted. It claims to have been written by a con- 
temporary of Pius,, and cannot on that supposition be 
placed much later than 170 A.D. 2 Internal evidence 
fully confirms its claim to this high antiquity ; and it may 
be regarded on the whole as a summary of the opinion of 
the Western Church on the Canon shortly after the middle 
of the second century 3 . Though it adds but little to what 
has been already obtained in detail from separate sources, 
yet by combination and contrast it gives a new effect to 
the general result. It serves to connect the isolated facts 



comjjosition. 



1 Murat. I. c. : Adservat Ambrosi- 
ana Mediolanensis Bibliotheca mem- 
branaceum codicein e Bobiensi ac- 
ceptum, cujus antiquitas pagne ad 
annos mille accedere mibi visa est. 
Scriptus enim fuit litteris majusculis 
et quadratis. Titulus prsefixus om- 
nia tribuit Joanni Chrysostomo, sed 
immerito. Mutilum in principio co- 
dicem deprehendi...Ex hoc ergo co- 
dice ego decerpsi fragmentum anti- 
quissiroum ad Canon em Divinarum 



Scripturarum spectans. A more 
complete description of the Manu- 
script is given in App. C. 

2 Pastorem vero nuperrime tem- 
poribus nostrisin urbe Roma Hernia 
conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis 
Pom& ecclesia3. Pio episcopo fratre 
ejus. Cf. p. 171. The date of the 
episcopate of Pius is variously given 
127 — 142 and 142 — 157. 

3 The Books it omits are noticed 
below, p. 191. 



186 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. 



[paut 



CHAP. II. 



Different 
theories 
as to its 
authorship. 



Probably a 
fragment of 
*ome Greek 
Apologetic 
work. 



in which we have recognized different elements of the 
Canon; and by its accurate coincidence with these justi- 
fies the belief that it was confined approximately within 
the same limits from the first. 

There is no sufficient evidence to determine the au- 
thorship of the Fragment. Muratori supposed that it was 
written by Caius the Roman Presbyter, and his opinion 
for a time found acceptance 1 . Another scholar confidently 
attributed it to Papias, and perhaps with as good reason 2 . 
Bunsen again affirms that it is a translation from Hege- 
sippus 3 . But such guesses are barely ingenious; and the 
opinions of those who assign it to the fourth century, or 
doubt its authenticity altogether, scarcely deserve men- 
tion 4 . 

The exact character of the work to which the Frasr- 
ment belonged is scarcely more certain than its author- 
ship 5 . The form of composition is rather apologetic than 
historical, and it is not unlikely that it formed part of a 
Dialogue with some heretic 6 . , One point alone can be 
made out with tolerable certainty. The recurrence of 
Greek idioms appears conclusive as to the fact that it is a 
translation 7 , and this agrees well with its Roman origin, 



1 Cf. Routh, I. p. 398 ff. 

2 [Simon de Magistris] Daniel 
secundum XZX...mdcclxxii. Dis- 
sert, iv. pp. 467 ff. 

3 Hippolytus and his Age, I. p. 

4 Such is also the decision of Cred- 
ner, a most impartial judge: Zur 
Gesch. d. K. p. 93. 

5 It is not necessary to enter into 
the theory of Credner, which has 
been also supported by Yolkmar, 
that the Fragment is in fact a com- 
plete Tractatus de Libris quos Ec- 
clesia Catholica Apostolica recipit 
{Gesch. d. N. T. Kanon, 153). The 
internal character of the Fragment 
seems to me to be absolutely deci- 



sive against such a view; and it 
would be hardly possible to indicate 
the circumstances under which any 
Christian writer would have ven- 
tured to publish such a tract in such 
a form, while the substance of the 
Fragment would naturally fall within 
the scope of a discussion with some 
non- Catholic adversary. Happily 
little or nothing turns upon the 
view which is taken of the original 
form of the Fragment. 

6 e. g. De quibus singulis necesse 
est a nobis disputari...Recipimus... 
Quidam ex nostris. 

7 e.g. juris studiosum = rov diKaiov 
£rj\wT7]v. Dominutn tamen nee ipse 
vidit in carne, et idem prout assequi 



i.] The Canon of Muratori. 187 

for Greek continued to be even at a later period the ordi- chap, it 
nary language of the Roman Church. 

The Fragment commences with the last words of a The tesu- 
sentence which evidently referred to the Gospel of St a bear* • )ta 
Mark 1 . The Gospel of St Luke, it is then said, stands and 
third in order [in the Canon], having been written by 
'Luke the physician' the companion of St Paul, who, not 
being himself an eye-witness, based his narrative on such 
information as he could obtain, beginning from the birth 
of John. The fourth place is given to the Gospel of St 
John ' a disciple of the Lord 2 ,' and the occasion of its com- 
position is thus described: 'At the entreaties of his fellow- 
' disciples and his bishops John said : Fast with me for three 
1 days from this time, and whatever shall be revealed to each 
1 of as [whether it be favourable to my writing or not] let 
'us relate it to one another. On the same night it was 
' revealed to Andrew one of the Apostles that John should 
c relate all things in his own name, aided by the revision 
'of all 3 '...' what wonder is it then that John so constantly 
' brings forward Gospel-phrases even in his Epistles, saying 
'in his own person, luhat tue have seen with our eyes and iJobnii. 
'heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these 
' things have ive written ? For so he professes that he was 



potuit ita et a nativitate, dr. J oh an 
nes ex discipulis. Principia, princi 
palis = dpxc", dpxcuos {Iren.v. 21. i) 
Nihil differt credentium fidei. Et Jo 
hannes enim. Fertur = <pep€Tai. Re 
cipi non potest = ov dwaTca. Ad hse 



one of the Apostles given to Andrew, 
as shewing that the writer of the 
Fragment distinguishes the c disciple 
John' the author of the Gospel and 
the first Epistle from the 'Ajiostlc 
John' the author of the Apocalypse 



resim Marcionis. The fact that the and the second and third Epistles 
volume contains among other pieces (a. a. O. pp. 159 ff.)« The title is pro- 
translations from Chrysostom is also bably borrowed from St John's own 
favourable to this conclusion. usage: vi. 3; xii. 4; xiii. 23; dr., 

1 The Fragment is given at length and especially xix. 26 f.: xxi. 24. No- 
in App. C, to which reference must thing in the Fragment itself suggests 
be made for the original text of the a distinction between the Johns 
passages here quoted. whom it names. 

2 Credner insists on this title dig- 3 Cf. Eoutb, 1. pp. 409 sq. 
ciple when compared with the title 



188 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [pabt 

chap. ii. ' not only an eye-witness, but also a hearer, and moreover- 
' a historian of all the wonderful works of the Lord/ 
tuimpor- Though there is no trace of any reference to the Gospel 

tance of this ° ... 

testimony, f St Matthew, it is impossible not to believe that it 
occupied the first place among the four Gospels of the 
anonymous writer 1 . Assuming this, it is of importance to 
notice that he regards our Canonical Gospels as essentially 
one in purpose, contents, and inspiration. He draws no 
distinction between those which were written from per- 
sonal knowledge, and those which rested on the teaching 
of others. He alludes to no doubt as to their authority, 
no limit as to their reception, no difference as to their use- 
fulness. ' Though various ideas (jprinci'pia) are taught in 
' each of the Gospels, it makes no difference to the faith of 
'believers, since in all of them all things are declared by 
'one leading spirit 2 concerning the Nativity, the Passion, 
'the Resurrection, the conversation [of our Lord] with 
'His disciples, and His double Advent, first in humble 
'guise, which has taken place, and afterwards in royal 
' power, which is yet future/ This the earliest recognition 
of the distinctness and unity of the Gospels, of their origin 
as due to human care and Divine guidance, is as complete 
as any later testimony. The Fragment lends no support 
to the theory which supposes that they were gradually 
separated from the mass of similar books. Their peculiar 
position is clear and marked ; and there is not the slightest 
hint that it was gained after a doubtful struggle or only at 
a late date. Admit that our Gospels were regarded from 

1 As bearing upon the authorship There is no evidence of the existence 

of the Fragment it may be noticed of Christian Latin Literature out of 

that the order of the Gospels is not Africa till about the close of the 

that of the African Church, in which second century, 
according to the oldest authorities 2 Uno acprincipali Spiritu. Prin- 

Matthew and John stood first. And cipalis is used to translate ijye/jLOPL- 

if the Fragment was not of African kos in Ps. Ii. 12 Vulg., and Iren. c. 

origin it follows almost certainly that Hcer. III. 11. 8 [bis], 
it was not originally written in Latin. 



l] The Canon of Muratori. 189 

the first as authoritative records of Christ's Life even when chap, ii 
they did not supersede the living record of Apostolic 
tradition, and then this new testimony explains and con- 
firms the fragmentary notices which alone witness to the 
earlier belief : deny that it was so, and the language of 
one who had probably conversed with Polycarp at Rome 
becomes an unintelligible riddle. It would be necessary 
in that case to suppose that the Gospels had usurped a 
place during his lifetime to which before they had only 
made claim in common with other rivals, and yet he 
speaks of them as if they had always occupied it. 

Next to the Gospels the book of the Acts is mentioned W to the 
as containing a record by St Luke ' of those acts of all the 
'Apostles which fell under his own notice/ That this was 
the rule which he prescribed to himself is shewn, it is 
added, by ' the omission of the martyrdom of Peter and 
c the journey of Paul to Spain 1 .' 

Thirteen Epistles are attributed to St Paul ; of these MJ^Jfa - 
nine were addressed to Churches, and four to individual st Paul > 
Christians. The first class suggests an analogy with the 
Apocalypse. As St John when writing for all Christen- 
dom wrote specially to seven Churches, so St Paul also 
( wrote by name only to seven Churches, shewing thereby 
c the unity, of the Catholic Church, though he wrote twice 
1 to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction 2 / 
The order in which these Epistles are enumerated is 
remarkable: i and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 
Colossians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans. This 
order may have been determined by a particular view 
of their contents, since it appears that the author attri- 
buted to St Paul a special purpose in each Epistle, saying 

1 This appears to be the sense of 2 Bouth has a good note (i. pp. 

the clause, though the text is un- 416 sqq.) on the symbolism of the 
doubtedly corrupt. See App. C. number seven. 



190 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. that ' he wrote first to the Corinthians to forbid heretical 

■ schism ; afterwards to the Galatians to put a stop to cir- 

■ cumcision ; then at greater length to the Komans, accord- 
' ing to the rule of the [Old Testament] Scriptures, shew- 
ing at the same time that Christ was the foundation of 
'them/ The second class includes all that are received 
now : ( an Epistle to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to 
'Timothy/ which though written only 'from personal 
' feeling and affection, are still hallowed in the respect of 
'the Catholic Church, [and] in the arrangement of eccle- 
' siastical discipline.' 

{b) to the At this point the Fragment diverges to spurious or 

thoiic Epistles disputed books, and the exact words are of importance. 

as distinr * ' 1 

guuhed/rom < Moreover/ it is said, 'there is in circulation an Epistle 

certain Apo- r 

cryphai books, < to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians 
' forged under the name of Paul bearing on the heresy of 
'Marcion 1 , and several others which cannot be received 
'into the Catholic Church. For gall ought not to be 
' mixed with honey. The EpistlB of Jude however (sane) 
' and two Epistles of the John who has been mentioned 
'above are received in the Catholic [Church] (or are 
' reckoned among the Catholic [Epistles]) 2 . And the book 

1 Nothing is known of the Epistle evidence of its existence occurs in 
to the Alexandrians. The attempt the Speculum published by Mai, and 
to identify it with that to the He- the Latin Manuscript of La Cava 
hreics is not supported by the slight- (viiith cent.), both of which recog- 
e.st evidence. The Epistle to the nize the spurious clause in i John v. 
Laodiceans is also involved in great 7. From the ixth century down- 
obscurity. The Epistle to the Ephe- ward it is very commonly found in 
sians bore that name in Marcion's Manuscripts of the Vulgate, and 
collection of St Paul's Epistles, and seems to have been especially popular 
the text may contain an inaccurate in the English Church. See below, 
allusion to it. In Jerome's time Part in. 

there was an 'Epistle to the Laodi- 2 The reading of the Manuscript 

'ceans rejected by all.' Cf . Eouth, 1. is in Catholica, and Routh (I. 425 ; 

pp. 420 sqq. The remarkable cento in. 44) has shewn that Tertullian 

of Pauline phrases which is fre- (de Prccscr. Hair. 30) and later wri- 

quently found in Manuscripts of the ters sometimes omit ecclesia. The 

Vulgate under this name was un- context on the other hand favours 

doubtedly of Latin origin. The first the correction in Cathollcis, and I find 



l] The Canon of Muratori. 191 

'of Wisdom written bv the friends of Solomon in his ciiaimi. 
'honour [is acknowledged]. We receive moreover the ^g?pi 
'Apocalypses of John and Peter only, which [latter] some 
' of our body will not have read in the Church.' 

After this mention is made of the Shepherd 1 , and of other 

v x writings 

the writings of Yalentinus, Basilides, and others : and so mentioned. 
the Fragment ends abruptly. 

It will then be noticed that there is no special enu- Its omit*; n». 
meration of the acknowledged Catholic Epistles — i Peter 
and i John 2 : that the Epistle of St James, 2 Peter, and 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, are also omitted : but that with 
these exceptions every book in our New Testament Canon 
is acknowledged, and one book only added to it — the 
Apocalypse of St Peter — which it is said was not univer- 
sally admitted. 

The character of the omissions helps to explain them. Thetnx 

,. planation qf 

The first Epistle of St John is quoted in an earlier part of them. 
the Fragment, though it is not mentioned in its proper 
place, either after the Acts of the Apostles, or after the 
Epistles of St Paul : there is no evidence that the first 
Epistle of St Peter was ever dis]3uted, and it has been 
shewn that it was quoted by Polycarp and Papias : the 
Epistle to the Hebrews and that of St James were cer- 
tainly known in the Roman Church, and they could 
scarcely have been altogether passed over in an enumera- 
tion of books in which the Epistle of St Jude, and even 
Apocryphal writings of heretics, found a place. The cai^ 
of the omissions cannot have been ignorance or doubt. It 

that it has been adopted by Bunsen Tertullian. 

(Hippobjtus, II. 136), who first gave 1 See page 171, note :. 

what is certainly the true connexion 2 The context tends to shew that 

of the passage. I do not know the 'two Epistles of St John" are the 

whether there is any earlier instance Second and Third Epistles. Com- 

of ko.0o\lkt] iirL<7To\y) than in a frag- pare however p. 65, n. 4 : Iren. C 

inent of Apollonius (Euseb. //. K. liar. ill. 16. 8; and App. C. 

V. 1 8), who was a contemporary of 



192 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [past 

chap. ii. must be sought either in the character of the writing, or 
in the present condition of the text. 

The present form of the Fragment makes the idea of a 
chasm in it very probable ; and more than this, the want 
of coherence between several parts seems to shew that it 
was not all continuous originally, but that it has been 
made up of three or four different passages from some 
unknown author, collected on the same principle as the 
quotations in Eusebius from Papias, Irenseus, Clement, 
and Origen 1 . On either supposition it is easy to explain 
the omissions ; and even as the Fragment now stands we 
may perhaps find traces of the books which it does not 
notice. Thus the Epistle of St Jude and two Epistles 
of St John are evidently alluded to as having been doubted 
and yet received. c They are indeed received/ it is said, 
if we accept a probable emendation of the text, c among 
the Catholic Epistles;' and some there must first have 
been to form a centre of the group. In like manner 
the allusion to the book of Wisdom (Proverbs) is unintel- 
ligible unless we suppose that it was introduced as an 
illustration of some similar case in the New Testament. 
Bunsen has very ingeniously connected it with the ancient 
belief that the Epistle to the Hebrews was attributed to 
the pen of a companion of St Paul, and not to the Apostle 
himself 2 . Thus that which was 'written by friends of 
'Solomon' would be parallel with that which was written 
by the friend of St Paul. If the one was received as 
Canonical, it justified the claims of the other. 

It may be urged that these explanations of the omis- 
sions in the Fragment are conjectural; and the objection 
is valid against their positive force. But on the other 

1 The connexion appears to be examination of it is reserved for the 

broken in at least two places ; but Appendix. 

as the general sense of the text is 2 HipjpolytiLS and his Age, II. p. 

not affected by this view a detailed 138. 



I.] Melito of Sardis. 193 

hand it is to be noticed that the position in the Christian chap. 11. 
Canon which was occupied by the books which are passed 
over calls for some explanation. The Epistle to the He- 
brews for example is just that of which the earliest and 
most certain traces are found at Rome 1 . Any one who 
maintains the integrity of the text must be able to shew 
how it came to be left out in the enumeration. 

A fragment of Melito Bishop of Sardis in the time of MvLnomt- 

ii • i • l • ••! ite**t* to the 

Marcus Antoninus adds a trait which is wanting m the existence of 

a Canon. 

fragment on the Canon 2 . In that the books of the New 
Testament are spoken of as having individual authority, 
and being distinguished by ecclesiastical use ; but nothing 
is said of them in their collected form, or in relation to 
the Jewish Scriptures. The words of Melito on the other 
hand are simple and casual, and yet their meaning can 
scarcely be mistaken. He writes to Onesimus a fellow 
Christian, who had urged him 'to make selections for him 
■ from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour 
' and the Faith generally, and furthermore desired to learn 
' the accurate account of the Old (yrcLkai<ov) Books ;' 
'having gone therefore to the East/ Melito says, 'and 
'reached the spot where [each thing] was preached and 
'done, and having learned accurately the Books of the 
' Old Testament, I have sent a list of them/ The men- 
tion of 'the Old Books'— 'the Books of the Old Testa- 
'ment/ — naturally implies a definite New Testament, a 
written antitype to the Old ; and the form of language 
implies a familiar recognition of its contents. But there 

1 See p. 23. mitted to share the imperial power 

2 Melito presented an Apology to (a.d. '176). His .treatise on the Pass- 
Marcus Antoninus after the death of over probably belongs to an earlier 
Aurelius Verus (a.d. 169); and, as date. The persecution 'in which 
appears from a passage quoted by ' Sagaris was martyred ' (Euseb. I.e.) 
Eusebius (fiera rod iratdos, IV. 26), was probably that in which Polycarp 
at a time when Commodus was ad- also suffered (a.d. 167). 

C. O 



194 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. is little evidence in the fragment of Melito to shew what 

writings he would have included in the new collection. 

He wrote a treatise on the Apocalypse, and the title of 

one of his 'essays is evidently borrowed from St Paul — 

Rom.i 5 ;xvi. < Q n ^he obedience of Faith.' 

20. 

His Apology. An ' Oration of Melito the philosopher who was in the 
'presence of Antoninus Caesar' has been preserved in a 
Syriac translation ; and though if it be entire it is not 
the Apology with which Eusebius was acquainted, the 
general character of the writing leads to the belief that it 
is a genuine book of Melito of Sardis. Like other Apolo- 
gies this Oration contains only indirect references to the 
Christian Scriptures. The allusions in it to the Gospels 
are extremely rare and, except so far as they shew the 
influence of St John's writings, of no special interest. But 
the conception of God as the 'Father and God of Truth 1 ,' 
the Absolute and Self-existent 2 , 'Who is Himself Truth 
t and His Word Truth 3 ,' as contrasted with the vanity of 
idols, is a remarkable proof of the manner in which the 
highest Christian doctrine was used in controversy with 
heathen adversaries. The coincidences with the Epistles 
are more numerous. Those with St James and i Peter 
are particularly worthy of notice 4 ; and one passage offers a 
very remarkable resemblance to 2 Peter 5 . 

1 Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, i tance which fadeth not away ' (id. 

p. 42. p. 51). Compare i Peter i. 4. 
* 2 Id. p. 41. 5 'There was once a flood and a 

3 Id. p. 45. 'wind and the chosen men were de- 

4 'Light without envy is given to 'stroyed by a mighty north wind... 
' all of us that we may see thereby ' ' at another time there was a flood of 
(?'cZ. p. 42). ' With [the Lord] there 'waters. ..So also it will be at the 
'is no jealousy of giving the know- 'last time : there shall be a flood of 
' ledge of Himself to them that seek ' fire, and the earth shall be burnt up 
'it' (id. p. 48). Compare James 'together with its mountains, and 
i. 5 ff. ' men shall be burnt up together with 

'When thou Caesar shalt learn 'their idols... and the sea together 

'these things thyself and thy chil- 'with its isles shall be burnt; and 

'dren also with thee, thou wilt be- 'the just shall be delivered from the 

'queath to them an eternal inheri- 'fury like their fellows in the Ark 



i.] Melito of Sardis. 195 

But the evidence which remains of the remarkable chap. ii. 
literary activity of Melito is more important than the ^^fe 
direct bearing which the fragments of his books have "JjKj 
upon the Christian Canon. The titles of his works which ^^n^ought. 
have been preserved by Eusebius— and he implies that 
the list is not complete — bear a striking witness to the 
energy of speculation within the Church in the second 
century. Scarcely any branch of theological inquiry was 
left untouched by him : and the variety of his treatises is 
a witness to the variety of Christian culture in his age. 
And more than this : it is a presumptive argument of the 
greatest force against the possibility of any revolution in 
the Creed and constitution of the Church, such as is sup- 
posed to have been effected in his time by a series of sup- 
posititious Apostolic writings. The character of his inqui- 
ries shews that the broad outlines of Christianity were 
already clearly defined. Morality, Ritual, Psychology, 
Dogma, had already become subjects for systematic treat- 
ment. Thus in addition to the books alread} T quoted he 
wrote on Hospitality — on Easter, and on the Lord's day 
(7T€pl tcvpLcucrjs) — on the Church, on [Christian] Citizenship 
(jrepl iroXiTeias) and Prophets, on Prophecy, on Truth, 
and on Baptism {rrepl Xovrpov) — on the Creation (ktictk;) 
and Birth of Christ, on the Nature of Man, and on the 
Soul and Body — on the Formation of the World (jrepl 
ir\daea)$), and (according to one reading) on the Organs of 

'from the waters of the deluge' iro\os h x^ ov ^ &$ ^ a ^ wekdyei' 

(id. pp. 50, 51). Compare 2 Peter pevaei de wvpbs p.a\epou KarapdKTTjs 

hi. 5 — 7. 'A/ca/xaros, (pXe^et de yalav (pXe^ci de 

The first allusion in the quotation ddXaaaav. In other passa. iu 

is to the destruction of the tower of final catastrophe is described in simi- 

Babel which is mentioned in similar lar terms : 11. 196 ff.; vn. 1 18 ff. <t"., 

terms in the Sibylline Oracles III. and it is impossible therefore to affirm 

no ff. In the same passage of the that the reference in Melito is to 2 

Sibyllines there is also a description Peter and not rather to the Sibyl lines 

of the future destruction of the world or to the widespread tradition on 

by fire: Kat ireaerai iroXvfjLop<pos oXos which they rested. 

2 



196 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 

chap. ii. sense — on the Interpretation of Scripture (f) tckeii) — on 
the Devil, and on the Incarnation 1 {irepl ivawfidrov 6eov). 
a fragment qf Of these multifarious writings very few fragments 

his Treatise On _ . . ■ s 

ram. remain m the original Greek, but the general tone of 

them is so decided in its theological character as to go far 
to establish the genuineness of those which are preserved 
in the Syriac translation. One of these said to be taken 
from the treatise On Faith is a very striking expansion of 
the early historic Creed of the Church, and deserves on 
every account to be quoted in full : ' We have made col- 
( lections from the Law and the Prophets relative to those 
'things which have been declared respecting our Lord 
'Jesus Christ 2 , that we may prove to your love that He 
' is perfect Reason, the Word of God ; Who was begotten 
'before the light; Who was Creator together with the 
' Father ; Who was the Fashioner of man ; Who was all in 
- all ; Who among the Patriarchs was Patriarch ; Who in 
' the law was the Law ; among the priests Chief Priest ; 
' among kings Governor ; among prophets the Prophet ; 



1 Euseb. H.E. IV. 26. It may 'Body; and another On the love of 

be well to add Dv Cureton's trans- ' Strangers, and On Satan and On 

lation of the Syriac version of this ' the Revelation of John ; and again 

passage which differs in some places ' another On God who put on the 

from the Greek : ' The treatises [of ' Body ; and again another which he 

' Melito] with which we have become ' wrote to the Emperor Antoninus ' 

'acquainted are the following: On (Spicilegium Syriacum, p. 57). Some 

'Easter two, and On Polity and On of the variations are interesting, as 

' the Prophets ; and another On the in the clauses corresponding to 6 

'"Church and another On the First irepl vwaK07]s irlo-reus [/cat 6 irepl] 

' Day of the Week ; and again an- alo-drjTrjpicjv and 7T€pl Kricrecos kcli 

' other On the Faith of Man (i. e. yeveaews XpiarGv. One Treatise {ij 

' irepl iriarecos, not irepl <pvo~eus o\v- K\eis) is omitted, and one (irepl 

' dpwwov) and another On his For- ipvxvs Ka ' L crco/uaros) reckoned twice, 
'mation; and again another On the a The remarkable coincidence of 

'hearing of the Ear of Faith; and these words with the fragment 

' besides these [one] On the Soul quoted by Eusebius (If. E. iv. 26) 

' and Body ; and again On Baptism is a strong proof of the genuineness 

'and On the Truth and On the of the fragment: rj^iuaas.. yeve"<jdai 

'Faith; and On the Birth of Christ crot ercXoyds 2k re rod vdpiov ical 

'and On the word of his Prophecv ; twc it pocpyjr (2v irepl rcw ScottJ- 

'and again On the Soul and on the pos /ecu irdo-ns r^s iriareajs iija&v. 



I.] Melito of Sardis. 19/ 

1 among the Angels Archangel ; in the Voice the Word ; chap. 11. 
' among spirits Spirit ; in the Father the Son ; in God 
1 God, the King for ever and ever. For this was He Who 

* was Pilot to Noah ; Who conducted Abraham ; Who was 
1 bound with Isaac ; Who was in exile with Jacob ; W ho 

* was sold with Joseph ; Who was Captain with Moses ; 
' Who was the Divider of the inheritance with Jesus the 
' son of Nun ; Who in David and the Prophets foretold His 
' own sufferings ; Who was incarnate in the Virgin ; Who 
' was born at Bethlehem ; Who was wrapped in swaddling 

* clothes in the manger ; Who was seen of shepherds ; Who 

* was glorified of Angels ; Who was worshipped by the 
' Magi; Who was pointed out by John; Who assembled the 
' Apostles ; Who preached the kingdom ; Who healed the 

* maimed; Who gave light to the blind; Who raised the 
' dead ; Who appeared in the Temple ; Who was not be- 
'lieved on by the people; Who was betrayed by Judas ; 
1 Who was laid hold on by the Priests ; Who was condemned 
■ by Pilate ; Who was pierced in the flesh ; Who was hanged 
1 upon the tree ; Who was buried in the earth ; Who rose 
'from the dead; Who appeared to the Apostles; Who 
'ascended to heaven; Who sitteth on the right hand of 

' the Father ; Who is the Rest of those that are departed, * 
' the Recoverer of those who are lost, the Light of those 
\ who are in darkness, the Deliverer of those who are cap- 
1 tives, the Finder of those who have gone astray, the Re- 
'fuge of the afflicted, the Bridegroom of the Church, the 
I Charioteer of the Cherubim, the Captain of the Angels, 
f God who is of God, the Son who is of the Father, Jesus 
'Christ, the King for ever and ever. Amen 1 .' 

No writer could state the fundamental truths of Chris- 
tianity more unhesitatingly or quote the Scriptures of the 
Old and New Testaments with more perfect confidence. 
1 Cureton, Spicilcgium Syriacum, pp. $3, 54. 



198 



The Age of the Greek Apologists. [part 



chap. ii. The subject of the passage offers full scope for the exhibi- 
tion of these characteristics, but they are also found in a 
greater or less degree in all the other fragments of Me- 
lito's writings which admit of similar expressions of faith. 
The fact is of great significance, for it explains what might 
have seemed to be a certain dryness in most of the quota- 
tions which have been hitherto made. This fragment is 
clearer in its witness to the doctrinal and devotional use 
of Holy Scripture than any which has been yet noticed, 
because it is taken from a treatise addressed to believers, 
and that upon their Faith. Elsewhere we .have heard the 
language of the Church to those without : here we are 
enabled to listen to the familiar language of Christians 
one to another. For once we catch the clear accents of 
faith. No heathen audience keeps back the expression 
of divine mysteries. In place of the constrained language 
of the Apology we listen to the triumphant Hymn 1 . 



The testimony of Melito finds a natural confirmation 



Claudius 
Apollinaris 

also shews that in a fragment of a contemporary writer , Claudius Apolli- 

the Gospels . ^ \ 

were a definite nans Bishop oi Hierapolis . 



When discussing the time 



1 This is not the place to discuss 
the genuineness of the Latin trans- 
lation of the Clavis attributed to 
Melito, which has been at length (cf. 
E-outh, I. pp. 141 fF.) published by 
J. B. Pitra in the Spicilegium So- 
lesmense. It is enough to say that 
I cannot believe that in its present 
form it fairly represents the work 
of the Bishop of Sardis, even if it 
may possibly have been based upon it. 

As far as I have observed the 
four Gospels are simply quoted as 
In Evangelio, without any further 
addition. The Epistles generally as 
In Apostolo. The only books of the 
New Testament from which no quo- 
tations are found are James, Jude, 
2, 3 John. The Revelation is quoted 
as In Apocalypsi, and a passage from 



2 Peter (ii. 17) is quoted twice: 
Clavis, ill. 14; IV. 25. The reference 
to i Peter ii. 5 is wrongly given by 
Pitra to 2 Peter ii. 5. 

2 Claudius Apollinaris also pre- 
sented an Apology to Marcus Anto- 
ninus. Hieron. de Virr. III. c. 26. 
Cf. Euseb. H. E. iv. 26. 

3 There is not any sufficient ground 
for doubting the genuineness of 
these fragments ' On Easter ' in the 
fact that Eusebius mentions no such 
book by Apollinaris. The words of 
Eusebius (//. E. iv. 27) are 'that 

there were many works of Apolli- 
naris in circulation, of which he 
enumerates only those which had 
come into his own hands :' rod 8' 
Airo\ivaplov iroWCov irapa iroWoTs 
<TU)£ofJLfr<t)u r& els ijfJLas i\06i>Ta icrri 



I.] Claudius Apollinaris. 193 

for the celebration of Easter lie writes: 'Some say that ohap.il 
'the Lord ate the lamb with His disciples on the 14th (oi an * recognized 

■l ~ ^ collect Kin 'it 

'Nisan), and suffered Himself on the great day of unlea-** a *^ me ' 
■ vened bread ; and they state that Matthew's narrative is 
' in accordance with their view ; while it follows that their 
'view is at variance with the Law, and according to them 
'the Gospels seem to disagree 1 .' The Gospels are evi- 
dently quoted as books certainly known and recognized ; 
their authority is placed on the same footing as the Old 
Testament ; and it must be remembered that this testi- 
mony comes from the same place as that of Papias, and 
that no such interval had elapsed between the two Bi- 
shops as to allow of any organic change in the Church 2 . 

One section of our inquiry is now finished. We have summary of 
examined all the evidence bearing on the history of the 
New Testament Canon which can be adduced from those 
who are recognized as Fathers of the Church during the 
period which has been marked out 3 . It has been shewn 

• 

rdde... The two fragments are pre- to place them in the next. There 

served in the Paschal or Alexandrine is not necessarily any abrupt break 

Chronicle (viith cent.). Cf. Routh, between the two periods. Ireiiasus 

1. pp. 167 sq. himself connects them as intimately 

1 Claud. Apoll. fr. ap. Eouth, I. as his master Polycarp connects the 
p. 160: Kai dLrjyovvTcu ~Mardouov age of the Apostles with that which 
ovtu \eyeiv ws vevo7]Kaatv' odev dcrvp' immediately followed it. T ATI ax 
(puvos re r<£ vbfxq t/ vbt](jL% avruv, will be noticed in Chap. iv. 

Kai aTaatdteiif 5o/cet kclt clvtovs tcl The beautiful letter of the Church 

evayyiXia. of Smyrna giving an account of 

2 A second fragment of Apolli- the martyrdom of Polycarp, written ^ 
naris is preserved, in which he makes shortly after it (a.d. 168. Cf. Mart. 

an evident allusion to John xix. 34, Polyc. c. xviii.), contains several 

and in such a way as to shew that allusions to books of the New Tes- 

the Gospel had become the subject tament : e.g. Matt. x. i$ = c. iv.; 

of careful interpretation. He speaks Matt. xxvi. 55 = c. vii. ; Acts ix. 7 — 

of Christ as 6 rr\v ayiav irXevpav £k- c. ix. ; Acts xxi. 14 = 0. vii.; 1 Cor. 

K€VT7]6eis f 6 €K%€o.s €K TTjs irXevpds ii. ^=c. ii. ; J\oni. xiii. 1, 7 = c. x. 

avrou ra duo irdXiv KaOdpcria lidup And besides several Pauline words 

Kai alfia, Xbyov Kai irvevpa. occur : e^ayopd^eo-Oai, fipafieiov, 6 

3 Athenagoras and Theophilus d^ei/S^s Ge6s. The doxology in c. 
might perhaps have been included xiv. is very noteworthy. While 
in this period, but I have preferred speaking of this letter I cannot but 



200 The Age of the Greek Apologists. [paet 

chap. ii. that up to this point one book alone of the New Testa- 
ment remains unnoticed : one Apocryphal book alone, and 
that doubtfully, placed within the limits of the Canon. 
There is not, so far as I am aware, in any Christian writer 
during the period which we have examined either direct 
mention of or clear reference to the second Epistle of St 
Peter 1 ; and the Apocalypse which bore his name partially 
usurped a place among the New Testament Scriptures. 
Nor is this all : it has been shewn also that the form of 
Christian doctrine current throughout the Church, as re- 
presented by men most widely differing in national and per- 
sonal characteristics, in books of the most varied aim and 
composition, is measured exactly by the Apostolic Canon. 
It has been shewn that this exact coincidence between the 
Scriptural rule and the traditional belief is more perfect 
and striking in proportion as we apprehend more clearly 
the differences which coexist in both. It has been shewn 
that the New Testament in its integrity gives an adequate 
explanation of the progress of Christianity in its distinct 
types, and that there i*s no reason to believe th^at at any 
subsequent time such a creative power was active in the 
Church as could have called forth writings like those 
which we receive as Apostolic. They are the rule and not 
the fruit of the Church's development. 
Points stm But at present the argument is incomplete. It is still 

remaining for . ° x - 

dismzsiou. necessary to inquire now tar a Canon was publicly recog- 
nized by national Churches as well as by individuals — 
how far it was accepted even by those who separated from 
the orthodox communion, and on what grounds they 

mention the admirable emendation omission of I before a II following, 

by which Dr Wordsworth (Hippo- he gives the true reading irepi art- 

lytus, App.) has effectually explain- paica. 

ed the famous passage about the x The reference in Melito is not 

Dove in c. xvi. For irepiarepa Kal> however to be neglected, see p. 194, 

by the change of one letter, and the n. 5. 



• 



I.] The Age of the Greek Apologists. 201 

rejected any part of it. These points will form the sub- chap u 
ject of the next two chapters, in which we shall examine 
the most ancient Versions of the East and West, and the 
writings of the earliest heretics. 



CHAPTER III. 

TKE EARLY VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



Jam totum Christi corpus loquitur omnium Unguis: 
et quibus nondum loquitur loquitur. 

A UGUSTIXUS. 



chap. in. FT is not easy to overrate the difficulties which beset 
whictf^etm -*- any inquiry into the early Versions of the New Testa- 
\?tf earliest inent. In addition to those which impede all critical 
investigations into the original Greek text, there are 
others in this case scarcely less serious, which arise from 
comparatively scanty materials and vague or conflicting 
traditions. There is little illustrative literature ; or, if 
there be, it is imperfectly known. There is no long line 
of Fathers to witness to the completion and the use of the 
translations. And though it be true that these hinder- 
ances are chiefly felt when the attempt is made to settle 
or interpret their text, they are no less real and perplex- 
ing when we seek only to investigate their origin and 
earliest form. Versions of Scripture appear to be in the 
first instance almost necessarily of gradual growth. Ideas 
of translation familiarized to us by long experience formed 
no part of the primitive system. The history of the Sep- 
tuagint is a memorable example of what might be ex- 
pected to be the history of Versions of the New Testament. 
And so far as there is any proof of unity in these which 
is wanting in that, we are led to conclude that the Canon 



part i.] The Early Versions. 203 

of the New Testament was more definitely fixed, that the ohaf. hi. 
books of which it was composed were more equally esteem- 
ed, than was the case with the Old Testament at the time 
when it was translated into Greek. 

Two Versions only claim to be noticed in this first How fart 
Period — the original Yersior±s of the East and West — investigating 

° , the Canon. 

the Peshito and Old Latin, which, though variously re- 
vised, remain after sixteen centuries the authorized litur- 
gical versions of the Syrian and Roman churches. At pre- 
sent we have only to do with their extent : the peculi- 
arities of text which they offer being considered only as one 
mark of their date. And here some care must be taken 
lest our reasoning form a circle. The Canon which the 
Peshito exhibits has been used to fix the time at which it 
was made ; and yet we shall quote the Peshito to help us 
in determining the Canon. The text of the Old Latin 
depends in many cases on individual quotations ; and yet 
we shall use it as an independent authority. Nor is this 
without reason ; for the age of the Peshito is indicated by 
numerous particulars, and if the exact form in which the 
Canon appears in it accords with what we learn from other 
fragmentary notices of the same date, the two lines of evi- 
dence mutually support and strengthen each other. And 
so if there be any ground for believing that the earliest 
Latin Fathers employed some particular Version of the 
books of the Xew Testament, then we may analyse their 
quotations, and endeavour to determine how many books 
were included in the translation, and how far the whole 
translation bears the marks of one hand. There is nothing 
of direct demonstrative force in the conclusions thus ob- 
tained, but they form part of a series, and give coherence 
and consistency to it. 



204 The Early Versions. [part 



chap. III. 



§ i. The Peshito 1 . 

ThePesMto The Peshito 2 or ' simple ' Syriac, that is Aramaean, 

vernacular Version is assigned almost universally to the most remote 
Ustineinthe Christian antiquity. The Syriac Christians of Malabar 
e ' even now claim for it the right to be considered as an 
Eastern original of the New Testament 3 ; and though their 
tradition is wholly unsupported by external evidence, it is 
not to a certain extent destitute of all plausibility. There 
can be no doubt that the so-called Syro-Chaldaic (Ara- 
maean) was the vernacular language of the Jews of Pales- 
tine in the time of our Lord, however much it may have 
been superseded by Greek in the common business of life 4 . 
It was in this dialect, the ' Hebrew ' of the New Testa- 
ment 5 , that the Gospel of St Matthew was originally written, 
if we believe the unanimous testimony of the Fathers ; and 
it is not unnatural to look to the Peshito as likely to con- 
tain some traces of its first form 6 . Even in the absence of all 

1 The chief original authorities Josephus it is used both of the true 
on the Peshito which I have Hebrew and of the Aramaean. David- 
examined are : Ni. Ti. Versiones son, Biblical Criticism, I. 9 ; Ethe- 
Syriacce, Simplex, Philoxeniana, et ridge, Horce Aramaicce, p. 7. In 
Hierosolymitana, denuo examinatce a the conclusion to the Book of Job in 
J.G.C.Adler. ifa/tt^,MDCCLXXxrx. the LXX. 'Syriac' appears to be 
Horoz Syriacce, auctore N. Wiseman used for the true Hebrew. Dr 
S. T. D. Tom. 1. Roma, mdcccxxyhi. Roberts' Dissertations on the Gos- 
J.Wichelhaus, De N. T. versione pels (Ed. 2, London, 1863) contain 
Syriacd quam Peschitho vocant Libri much that is very valuable on the 
IV. Halis, 1850. language of Palestine in the time of 

2 This title seems to be best in- our Lord ; but his arguments only 
terpreted ' simple,' as implying the shew that the country was bilingual 
absence of any allegorical interpre- 6 The history of this Syriac Ver- 
tations. Hug, Introd. § lxii. sion offers a remarkable parallel to 

3 Etheridge's Syrian Churches, pp. that of the Latin, but with this 
166 ff. difference, that of the Old Syriac one 

4 Wiseman, Horce Syriaca, pp. 69 very imperfect copy only, the Cure- 
sqq. tonian Version of the Gospels, has 

5 John v. 1 ; xix. 13,17,-20; xx. been preserved. But this is suffi- 
16. Acts xxi. 40; xxii. 2 ; xxvi. 14. cient to shew that the Old Syriac 
Cf. Apoc. ix. if ; xvl. 16. The word was related very nearly to the later 
' Hebrew ' is first applied to the revision of the Peshito, as the Old 
language of the Old Testament in Latin was to the Hieronymian Latin, 
the Apocrypha (Prol. Sir.). In The materials are not perhaps yet 



r ] The Peshito. 205 

direct proof some critics have maintained that the Epistle chap. hi. 
to the Hebrews must have been written in the same 
Aramaic language ; and though little stress can be laid on 
such arguments, they serve to shew how intimately the 
Peshito was connected with the wants of the early Chris- 
tians of Palestine. 

The dialect of the Peshito, even as it stands now, repre- The peOifto 

7 m x compared 

sents in part at least that form of Aramaic which was £** the 

■t \ etus Latma. 

current in Palestine 1 . In this respect it is like the Latin 
Vulgate, which, though revised, is marked by the provin- 
cialisms of Africa. Both versions appear to have had their 
origin in districts where their languages were spoken in 
impure dialects, and afterwards to have been corrected, 
and brought nearer to the classical standard. In the ab- 
sence of an adequate supply of critical materials it is im- 
possible to construct the history of these recensions in the 
Syriac ; the analogy of the Latin is at present our only 
guide. But if a conjecture may be allowed, I think that a conjecture 
the various facts of the case are adequately explained by 
supposing that Versions of separate books of the New 
Testament were first made and used in Palestine, perhaps 
within the Apostolic age, and that shortly afterwards these 
were collected, revised, and completed at Edessa 2 . 

sufficiently extensive or trustworthy man, I. c. p. 106), which seems to have 

to furnish a clear decision as to the been specially marked by the occur- 

relation in which the Syriac St Mat- rence of Greek words. The occur- 

thew stood to the original 'Hebrew' rence of Lathi words in the Peshito 

Gospel (compare Introduction to the may be illustrated by examples from 

Study of Gospels, ch. IV. 2. i.), though Syrian writers (Wiseman, I.e. p. 

Dr Cureton has pointed out some 119, note). 

facts bearing upon the question in the 2 In the present section when 

Introduction to his edition of the speaking of the Peshito I mean the 

early text. translation of the New Testament, 

1 Gregory Bar Hebraeus says that unless it be otherwise expressed, 

there were three dialects of Syriac At the same time it may be remark- 

(Aramaean) : the most elegant was ed that the Old Testament Peshito 

that of Edessa : the most impure is probably the work of a Christian, 

that current among the inhabitants and of the same date. Cf. Davidson, 

of Palestine and Libanus. The Pe- Biblical Criticism,!.]). 247 ; Wichel- 

shito was written in the latter (Wise- haus, p. 73. 



206 The Early Versions. [part 

chap. hi. Many circumstances combine to give support to this 

How this con- belief. The early condition of the Syrian Church, its wide 

jecture is sup- ° ° . 

ported. extent and active vigour, lead us to expect that a Version 

of the Holy Scriptures into the common dialect could not 
have been long deferred ; and the existence of an Aramaic 
Gospel was in itself likely to suggest the work 1 . Differ- 
ences of style, no less than the very nature of the case, 
point to separate translations of different books ; and at 
the same time a certain general uniformity of character 
bespeaks some subsequent revision 2 . I have ventured to 
specify the place at which I believe that this revision 
The historical was made 3 . Whatever may be thought of the alleged in- 
Ed£ssa mi tercourse of Abgarus with our Lord, Edessa itself is signal- 
ized in early church-history by many remarkable facts. 
It was called the 'Holy' and the 'Blessed' city 4 : its in- 
habitants were said to have been brought over by Thad- 
deus in a marvellous manner to the Christian Faith ; and 
' from that time forth/ Eusebius adds 5 , ' the whole people 
' of Edessa has continued to be devoted to the name of 
'Christ (jy rod Xptarov irpoaavaKeirai 7rpoar)yopia), ex- 
'hibiting no ordinary instance of the goodness of our 
'Saviour.' In the second century it became the centre of 

1 The activity of thought in West- lated (Wichelhaus, p. 86) ; but it is 
ern Syria at an early period is most to be remembered that the text of 
remarkable. It was not only the the Acts is more uncertain than that 
source of ecclesiastical order, but of any part of the New Testament, 
also of Apocryphal books. As a The Epistle to the Hebrews is 
compensation for the latter it pro- probably the work of a separate 
duced the first Christian Commen- translator. (Wichelhaus, pp. 86 ff.) 
taries, those of Theophilus and Se- 3 That it was made at some place 
rapion. Cf. Wichelhaus, p. 55. out of the Roman Empire is shewn 

2 Hug, Introduction, § 66; Ethe- in the translation of arpaTLLorai by 
ridge, liorce Aramaicce, p. 52. It is JRomans in Acts xxiii. 23, 31. [Cf. 
but fair to say that the Syrians Acts xxviii. 15 : Appiws Forws ] 
attributed the work to one trans- But this is not the case in the Gos- 
lator. pels, which, as I have conjectured, 

The Gospels are probably the ear- were translated earlier, and in Pales- 

liest as they are the closest transla- tine. Cf. Wichelhaus, pp. 78 ff. 

tion. 4 Horce Syriacce, p. ioi. 

The Acts are more loosely trans- 5 Euseb. H. E. II. 1. 



I.] The Peshito. 207 

an important Christian school ; and long afterwards re- chap. hi. 

tained its pre-eminence among the cities of its province. 

As might be expected tradition fixes on Edessa as the Syria* tradi- 
i i -iT-ki' •!•• /-n T» tt ti'on.s' as to the 

place whence the resnito took its rise, Gregory JBar He- wvifl of the 

i l f i i in f rn ' PeshitO. 

brseus , one of the most learned and accurate of Syrian Gregory Bar 

writers, relates that the New Testament Peshito was 
' made in the time of Thaddeus and Atearus Kino* of 
'Edessa/ when, according to the universal opinion of 
ancient writers, the Apostle went to proclaim Christianity 
in Mesopotamia. This statement he repeats several times, 
and once on the authority of Jacob a deacon of Edessa in Jacob of 
the fifth century. He tells us moreover that c messengers 
'were sent from Edessa to Palestine to translate the Sa- 
' cred Books ;' and though this statement refers especially 
to the Old Testament, it confirms what has been said of 
the Palestinian authorship of the Version. And it is wor- 
thy of notice that Gregory assumes the Apostolic origin of 
the New Testament Peshito as certain ; for while he gives 
three hypotheses as to the date of the Old Testament 
Version he speaks of this as a known and acknowledged 
fact. 

No other direct historical evidence remains to deter- Wa 
mine the date of the Peshito ; and it is impossible to sup- tare, 
ply the deficiency by the help of quotations occurring in 

1 The following testimonies from p. 90. Cf. Adler, p. 42. 
Gregory — inter suos ferme Kpiri- Occidentales [Syri] duas habent 

kutcltos — are given by Wiseman: versiones, Simplicem, qua? ex IJe- 

Quod vero spectat ad banc Syriacam braico in Syriacum translate est post 

[Versionem V. Ti.] tresfuerimt sen- adventum Domini Christi tempore 

tentiae ; prima quod tempore Salo- Aden Apostoli, vel ut alii dicunt 

monis et Hiram Regum conversa tempore Salomonis filii Davidis et 

fuerit; secunda quod Asa sacerdos, Hiram, et Figuratam...p. 94. 
quum ab Assyria missus fuit Sa- JacobusEdessenus dicit interpretea 

mariam, eura transtulerit : tertia tan- illos qui missi sunt ab Adai Apostolo 

dem quod diebus Adai Apostoli et et Abgaro Rege Osrhoeno in Pal 3- 

Abgari Regis Osrhoeni versa fuerit, tinam, quique verterunt Libros Sa- 

quando etiam Novum Testamentum cros...p. 103. 
eadem simplici forma traductum est. 



208 



The Early Versions, 



[part 



CHAP. III. 

Bardesanes, 



He ;e sip pus. 



early Syriac writers. The only Syriac work of a very 
early date which has been as yet discovered is Bardesanes 
Dialogue On Fate (or the Book of the Laws of Countries), 
of which Eusebius has preserved a considerable fragment 
in Greek 1 . This contains no express quotation from Scrip- 
ture, and the adaptation of Scriptural language in the 
course of the argument is so free that no conclusion can be 
drawn from the few coincidences which can be pointed out 
as to the existence of a Syriac Version in the time of the 
writer. On the other hand the general character of the 
work is such as not to admit of definite citations of Scrip- 
ture, and thus the absence of explicit references to the 
books of the New Testament does not prove that they did 
not then exist in Syriac. Moreover it is known that books 
were soon translated from Syriac into Greek, and while such 
an intercourse existed it is scarcely possible to believe that 
the Scriptures themselves remained untranslated. The 
same conclusion follows from the controversial writings of 
Bardesanes, which necessarily imply the existence of a 
Syriac Version of the Bible 2 . Tertullian's example may 
shew that he could hardly have refuted Marcion without 
the constant use of Scripture. And more than this, Euse- 
bius tells us that Hegesippus ' made quotations from the 
'Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Syriac and 
' especially from [writings in] the Hebrew language, shew- 
' ing thereby that he was a Christian of Hebrew descent 3 .' 
This testimony is valuable as coming from the only early 



1 The Syriac text with a transla- 
tion is given by Dr Cureton in his 
Spicilegium Syriacum, London. 1855. 
The Greek fragment occurs in Euseb. 
Prcep. Ev. vi. 10. 

2 Bardesanes — Valentinianse sectae 
primum discipulus...vir erat littera- 
rum gnarus, qui etiam ad Antoninum 
epistolam scribere ausus est, multos- 
que sermones contra Marcionitas 



atque simulacrorum cultum com- 
posuit (Moses Choron. ap. Wich- 
elhaus, p. 57). Cf. Euseb. H. E. 
IV. 30. 

3 Euseb. H. E. IV. 22: 2k re rod 
kolO^ 'Eppatovs evayyeXLov kclI too 
XvpiaKou kclI Idius <£k tt)s 'E(3pat5os 

diaX^KTOV TLVCL Ti6T]<TLP, ifUpCLLVWl' ££ 

'E(3paiwv eavrbu 7reirt<TT€VKfrai (quot- 
ed by Hug). 



L] The Peshito. 209 

Greek writer likely to have been familiar with Syriac chap. nr. 
literature ; and may we not see in the two Gospels thus 
mentioned two recensions of St Matthew — the one dis- 
figured by Apocryphal traditions, and the other written in 
the dialect of Eastern Syria ? 

Ephrem Syrus, himself a deacon of Edessa, treats the gP hnsm 
Version in such a manner as to prove that it was already 
old in the fourth century. He quotes it as a book of esta- 
blished authority, calling it ' Our Version :' he speaks of 
the 'Translator' as one whose words were familiar 1 ; and 
though the dialects of the East are proverbially permanent, 
his explanations shew that its language even in his time 
had become partially obsolete 2 . 

Another circumstance serves to exhibit the venerable The Peseta 

. ,, . received by 

aofe of this Version. It was universally received by the ail the Syrian 

. . . sects, 

different sects into which the Syrian Church was divided 
in the fourth century,' and so has continued current even 
to the present time. All the Syrian Christians 3 , whether 
belonging to the Nestorian, Jacobite, or Roman commu- 
nion, conspire to hold the Peshito authoritative, and to use 
it in their public services. It must consequently have 
been established by familiar use before the first heresies 

1 Horce Syriacce, pp. 116, 117. in 1 Pet. ii. 25. The name of deacon 

2 It does not seem that the dif- is nowhere retained. Wichelhaus, 
ference of the Edessene and Pales- p. 89. 

tinian dialects alone can account for The text of the Curetonian Go- 
the obscurities which Ephrem seeks spels is in itself a sufficient proof of 
to remove. The instances quoted by the extreme antiquity of the Syriac 
Dr Wiseman are in accordance with Version. This, as has been already 
his plan taken from the Old Testa- remarked, offers a striking resem- 
ment; but in the absence of all in- blance to that of the Old Latin, 
dications of the contrary it seems and cannot be later than the mid- 
fair to suppose that his remarks ap- die or close of the second century. 
ply equally to the New Testament. It would be difficult to point out a 
Cf. "Wichelhaus, p. 2 T. more interesting subject for criticism 
In reference to the phraseology of than the respective relations of the 
the Peshito it is w T orthy of remark Old Latin and Syriac Versions to 
that Episcopus is preserved in one the Latin and S}^riac Vulgates. But 
place only, Acts xx. 28. Elsewhere at present it is almost untouched, 
it is lashisho (presbyter), except 3 Horce Syriacce, p. 108. 



210 



The Early Versions. 



[part 



CHAP. 111. 



and used as 
the basis of 
other transla- 
tions, especi- 



arose, or it could not have remained without a rival. 
Numerous versions or revisions of the New Testament 
were indeed made afterwards, for Syriac literature is 
peculiarly rich in this branch of theological criticism : but 
no one ever supplanted the Peshito for ecclesiastical pur- 
poses 1 . Like the Latin Vulgate in the Western Church, 
the Peshito became in the East the fixed and unalterable 
Rule of Scripture. 

The respect in which the Peshito was held was further 
shewn by the fact that it was taken as the basis of other 
Versions in the East. An Arabic and a Persian Version 
were made from it; but it is more important to notice 



1 Dr Wiseman enumerates twelve 
Versions of the Old Testament. The 
most important for the criticism of 
the New Testament are the Phi- 
loxenian, the Harclean, and the 
Palestinian. 

The Philoxenian derives its name 
from a bishop of Mabug or Hiera- 
polis in Syria (A. D. 485 — 518) in 
whose time it was made by one Poly- 
carp for the use of the Monophy- 
sites. Of this Version only frag- 
ments remain; and it is uncertain 
whether it included all the books of 
the New Testament. Adler, p. 48. 
Wiseman, p. 178, n. Adler sup- 
poses that an early Mediceo-Floren- 
tine Manuscript (a.d. 757) of the 
Gospels exhibits this recension, but 
he adds that it differs little from the 
JEarclean. pp. 53—55- 

Thomas Harclensis, poor Thomas 
as he calls himself, a monk of Alex- 
andria in 616 A.D., revised the Phi- 
loxenian translation by the help of 
some Greek Manuscripts, and seems 
to have attempted for the Syriac 
Version what Origen accomplished 
for the Septuagint. The Oxford 
Manuscript of this Translation con- 
tains the seven catholic Epistles, but 
omits the Apocalypse. Adler, pp. 
49 sq. Comp. G. H. Bernstein, De 
Charklensi Ni. Ti. translatione Sy- 



riaca Commentatio, Vratisl. 1837. 

The Palestinian Version exists in 
an Evangelistarium of proper lessons 
for the Sundays and Festivals of the 
year. It is remarkable that the 
pericope, John vii. 53 — viii. n, 
which is wanting in the other Syriac 
versions, is contained in this in a 
form which agrees with the text of 
Cod. D. The dialect in which it is 
written is very similar to that of the 
Jerusalem Talmud : and thus Adler, 
who first accurately examined it, 
gave it the name of the Jerusalem 
Version. Adler, pp. 140 — 145; 190, 
191 ; 198 — 202. [This Version has 
been edited with a Latin translation by 
Con. F. Minischalci Erizzo, 1 861 — 4. ] 

In addition to these Versions there 
is the Karkaphensian recension of 
the Peshito made by an uncertain 
Jacobite author (Wiseman, p. 212), 
chiefly remarkable for the singular 
order in which the books are ar- 
ranged. The New Testament Canon 
is the same as that of the original 
Peshito, but the Acts and three 
Catholic epistles stand first as one 
booh; the fourteen Epistles of St 
Paul follow next ; and the four Go- 
spels in the usual order come last 
(Wiseman, p. 217). This recension 
has been accurately examined by Dr 
Wiseman, 11. cc. 



I.] The Peshito. 211 

that at the beginning of the fifth century (before the chap. hi. 
Council of Ephesus A.D. 431) an Armenian Version was ^Armenian, 
commenced from the Syriac in the absence of Greek 
Manuscripts 1 . 

These indications of the antiquity of the Peshito do Gmeraire- 
not indeed possess any conclusive authority, but they all 
tend in the same direction, and there is nothing on the 
other side to reverse or modify them. It is not improba- 
ble that fresh discoveries may throw a clearer light on 
early Syriac literature ; and that more copious critical 
resources may serve to determine the date of the Peshito 
on philological grounds. But meanwhile there is no suf- 
ficient reason to desert the opinion which has obtained 
the sanction of the most competent scholars, that its 
formation is to be fixed within the first half of the second 
century. The text, even in its present corrupt state, ex- confirmed by 
hibits remarkable agreement with the most ancient Greek 
Manuscripts and the earliest quotations. The very obscu- 
rity which hangs over its origin is a proof of its venerable 
age, because it shews that it grew up spontaneously among 
Christian congregations, and was not the result of any 
public labour. Had it been a work of late date, of the 
third or fourth century, it is scarcely possible that its 
history should have been so uncertain as it is 2 . 

The Version exists at present in two distinct classes of represent 
Manuscripts 3 . Some are written in the ancient Syrian verti.n. 
letters, and others of Indian origin in the Nestorian cha- 
racter. The latter are comparatively of recent date, but 
remarkable for the variations from the common text which 
they exhibit. Still though these two families of Manu- 

1 See Dr Tregelles, in the Diction- the Peshito was made as late as the 

ary of the Bible, s. v. Versions. fourth century. Dr Wiseman has 

' 2 J. B. Branca (i 781), from a fully refuted him, pp. no sqq. 
desire to raise the Vulgate ahove all 3 Adler, p. 3. 

rivalry, endeavoured to prove that 

P 2 



212 



The Early Versions. 



[part 



CHAP. III. 

The Syrian 
Canon. 



535 A.D. 



«• 55o. 



scripts represent different recensions they coincide as far 
as the Canon is concerned. Both omit the second and 
third Epistles of St John, the second Epistle of St Peter, 
the Epistle of St Jude, and the Apocalypse, but include 
all the other books as commonly received without any 
addition. This Canon seems to have been generally main- 
tained in the Syrian Churches, and in those which de- 
pended on their authority 1 . It is reproduced in the 
Arabic Version of Erpenius, which was taken from the 
Peshito 2 . Cosmas, an Egyptian traveller of the sixth cen- 
tury, states that only three Catholic Epistles were received 
by the Syrians 3 . Junilius mentions two Catholic Epistles 
as undoubted — 1 John, 1 Peter — while the remaining five 
were received 'by very many 4 / Dionysius Bar Salibi 5 in 
the twelfth century alludes to the absence of the second 
Epistle of St Peter from the ancient Syrian Version; 



1 Ephrem Strus however, if we 
may trust his Greek works, admitted 
the seven Catholic Epistles and the 
Apocalypse : but in this he repre- 
sents the Greek rather than the 
Syrian Church. Compare Part in. 
(J hap. n. There is no trace of their 
reception by the Syrian Churches, or 
of their admission into Manuscripts 
of the Peshito till a very late date. 

The Syriac Manuscripts in the 
British Museum offer a very instruc- 
tive history of the Syrian Canon of 
the N. T. The earliest dated N. T. 
(Rich, 7157), A.D. 768, contains four 
Gospels, Acts, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, 
13 Epistles of St Paul, Epistle to 
the Hebrews. An earlier copy of 
the (5th or) 6th century gives the 
same books in a different order, 
Gospels, Epistles of St Paul, Acts, 
James, 1 Peter, 1 John(Add. 14,470). 
The earliest Manuscript in which 
the disputed Epistles occur is dat- 
ed A.D. 823 (Add. 14,623). In 
another Manuscript (Add. 14,473) 
the then generally received Epistles 



were written in the sixth century, 
and the remaining four were added 
in the eleventh or twelfth. The 
Apocalypse (with a Commentary) is 
found in a Manuscript dated 1088. 
For these particulars I am indebted 
to the kindness of Dr W. Wright of 
the British Museum, who is prepar- 
ing a complete catalogue of the 
Nitrian Syriac Manuscripts. 

2 Actus app. et epistulas Pauli, 
item Iacobi epistulam, priorem Pe- 
tri et primam Iohannis, quemadmo- 
dum in ed. Erpeniana leguntur, e 
Syra Peschito fluxisse certum est. 
Reliquos libros ibidem exhibitos, i.e. 
apocalypsin cum quattuor reliquis 
epp. cath. unde interpres hauserit, 
non satis constat, sed videntur ori- 
ginem Coptam habuisse. Tischen- 
dorf, Proleg. N. T. ed. 7, p. 
ccxxxvu. 

3 Credner, Zur Gescli. d. Kanons, 
p. 105, n. See below, Part ill. 
Chap. 11. 

4 App. D. No. iv. Credner, I.e. 

5 Hug, §64. 



I.] The Peshito. 213 

Ebed-jesu 1 in tlie fourteenth century repeats the Canon of chap, in 
the Peshito ; and the mutilation of the New Testament by • 1318 a.d. 
the omission of the disputed books was one of the charges 
brought against the Christians of St Thomas at the Synod 1599 ^ 
of Diamper 2 . 

Such then is the Canon of the Syrian Churches 3 . Its The relation 

■^ t of the Canon. 

general agreement with our own is striking and important ; t0 our ow,i - 
and its omissions admit of easy explanation. The purely 
historic evidence for the second Epistle of St Peter must 
always appear inconclusive ; for it does not seem to have 
been generally known before the end of the third century. 
The Apocalypse again rests chiefly on the authority of the 
Western Churches ; and it is not surprising that the two 
shorter and private letters of St John should have been at 
first unknown in Mesopotamia. The omission of the 
Epistle of St Jude is perhaps more remarkable, when it is 
remembered that it was written in Palestine, and appears 
to be necessarily connected with that of St James. But 
these points will come under examination in another place. 
Meanwhile it is necessary to insist on the absence of all 
uncanonical books from this earliest Version. Many writ- 
ings we know were current in the East under Apostolic 
titles, but no one received the sanction of the Church ; 
and this fact alone is sufficient to shew that the Canon 
was not fixed without careful criticism. 

There is still another aspect in which the Peshito claims The Peshito 
our notice. Proceeding from a Church which in character monument 0/ 

° t i -n i • • Catholic 

and language seems to represent most truly the .Palestinian Christianity. 
element of the Apostolic age, it witnesses to something 
more than the authenticity of the New Testament Scrip- 

1 App. D. No. vi. the Epistles oF St Paul. In the 

2 Adler, p. 35. Karkaphensian recension, as we have 

3 The order of the Books is the seen, the order is in part inverted ; 
Fame as that in the best Greek and Jacob of Edessa follows the same 
Manuscripts : The four Gospels — arrangement, placing the Gospels 
— the Acts — the Catholic Epistles— last. Wichelhaus, p. 84. 



214 The Early Versions, [part 

chap. in. tures. It is in fact the earliest monument of Catholic 
Christianity. Here for the first time we see the different 
forms of Apostolic teaching which still served as the 
watchwords of heresy recognized by the East as consti- 

2 Pet. m. 15. tuent parts of a common faith. The closing words of St 
Peter had witnessed to the same truth ; and though the 
Syrian Churches refused to acknowledge the testimony, 
they confirmed its substance in this collection of their 
sacred books. The contest between the Jewish and Gen- 
tile Churches had passed away. The 'enemy' and 'de- 
ceiver/ as St Paul was still called by the Ebionites, is 
acknowledged in this first Christian Bible to have inde- 
pendent power and authority as an Apostle of Christ. 
Henceforth the great Father of the Western Church stands 
side by side with St James, St Peter, and St John, the 
Pillars of the Church of Jerusalem \ 

1 The Ancient Syriac Documents edited by Dr Cureton and Dr W. Wright 
(London, 1864) do not throw any new light upon the Syrian Canon. The 
writings themselves cannot maintain the claim to Apostolic antiquity which 
has been set up for some of them. In their present form they contain 
numerous anonymous references to the substance of the Gospels, in- 
cluding St John (xiv. 26, pp. 25, 36), and to the Epistle to the Romans 
(i. 25, p. 37 ; viii. 35, p. 54; id. 18, p. 81) ; and perhaps to Apoc. xx. 12 
(p. 9: this is very doubtful). The strange passage (p. 56) : 'One of the 
' Doctors of the Church hath said : The scars indeed of my body — that I 
' may come to the resurrection from the dead :' appears to be derived from 
Gal. vi. 17 ; Phil. iii. 11. 

Some Evangelic passages are given in what may be a traditional form. 
Thus we read (p. 20) that the Lord said : ' Accept not anything from any 
'man, and possess not anything in this world' (cf. Matt. x. 7 — 10). And 
the account of the Descent of the Holy Spirit (p. 25) is full of interest when 
compared with Acts ii. 

One passage (p. 1 o) appears to preserve the addition in Luke xxiii. 48 
which is found in Syr. Curet. and some Latin copies. It may be observed 
also that a reference is found (p. 8) to the famous saying ' Prove yourselves 
' tried money-changers,' on which Dr Cureton quotes from Lagarde's Didasc. 
Apost. (p. 42) : ' Be expert discerners (money-changers). It is requisite 
' therefore that a bishop like a trier of silver should be a discerner of the 
i bad and the good.' 

Among the ordinances attributed to the Apostles is one which probably 
formed the basis of the corresponding passages in the Apostolic Canons and 
Constitutions : * Except the Old Testament and the Prophets and the Gos- 
'pel and the Acts of their own [the Apostles] triumph let not anything 
* be read in the pulpit of the Church' (p. 27. Comp. p. 15). 



I.] The Old Latin. 215 

But this ordinance is afterwards modified by a remarkable paragraph CHAP. III. 
in which a general review is given of the writings of the Apostle3 with 
the exception of St Paul (p. 32): 'They again (the immediate success- 
ors of the Apostles) at their deaths committed and delivered to their dis- 
1 ciples after them everything which they had received from the Apjstles : 

* also what James had written from Jerusalem, and Simon from the city of 
' Rome, and John from Ephesus, and Mark from Macedonia, and Judas 
1 Thomas from India ; that the Epistles of an Apostle might be received 
; and read in the Churches in every place, as those Triumphs of their Acts 

• which Luke wrote are read, that by -this the Apostles might be known and 
' the Prophets and the Old Testament and the New : that one truth was 
1 preached by them all, that one Spirit spake in them all from one. God, 
' whom they had all worshipped and had all preached.' The omission of 
St Paul is made the more remarkable by the fact that in the distribution of 
ihe various countries among the Apostles no land is assigned to St Paul 
\Kome, Spain, and Britain, are given to St Peter), though he is afterwards 
mentioned casually in the same paragraph (p. 35). 

Dr Cureton fancies that a corrupt reading (p. 15) contains a reference to 
Tatian's Diatessaron (p. 158), but this is uncertain. 

§ 2. The Old Latin Version 1 . 
At first it seems natural to look to Italv as the centre of The early 

1 -r • t * r>n • t t • • Christian lite- 

the Latin literature 01 Christianity, and the original source ratureof 

. . Rxmu was 

of that Latin Version of the Holy Scriptures which in a Greek and 

x not Latin. 

later form has become identified with the Church of Rome. 
Yet however plausible such a belief may be ; it finds no 
support in history. Rome itself under the emperors was 
well described as a ' Greek city;' and Greek was its second 
language 2 . As far as we can learn, the mass of the poorer 
population — to which the great bulk of the early Chris- 
tians everywhere belonged — was Greek either in descent 
or in speech. Among the names of the fifteen bishops of 
Rome up to the close of the second century, four only are 
Latin 3 ; though in the next century the proportion is nearly 

1 The best original investigation Nov. Test. I. p. IX. ff. 

into the Old Latin Version is Wise- 2 Cf. Wiseman, in. pp. $66 f. 

man's Remarks on some parts of the Bunsen's Ilippolytas, 11. 123 sqq. 

controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, 3 \Bunsen. I. c. says 'two. Clement 

originally printed in the Catholic and Victor :' but probably Sixtus 

Magazine, ii., hi., 183?, f., and re- (Xystus, Euseb. //. E. iv. 4; cf. vn. 

published at Rome, 1835. 5) and certainly Pius should be in- 

Lachmann has produced his argu- eluded in the number, 
ments with some new illustrations : 



216 



The Early Versions. 



[part 



chap. in. reversed. When St Paul wrote to the Roman Church 
he wrote in Greek ; and in the long list of salutations to 
its members with which the epistle is concluded only four 
genuine Latin names occur. Shortly afterwards Clement 
wrote to the Corinthians in Greek in the name of the 
Church of Rome ; and at a later date we find the Bishop 
of Corinth writing in Greek to Soter the ninth in succes- 
sion from Clement. Justin, Hermas, and according to the 
common opinion Tatian 1 , published their Greek treatises 
at Rome. The Apologies to the Roman emperors were in 
Greek. Modestus, Caius, and Asterius Urbanus, bear 
Greek was also Latin names, and yet their writings were Greek. Even 

Ui>ed in Gaul. J ° 

further west Greek was the common language of Christians. 
The churches of Vienne and Lyons used it in writing the 
history of their persecutions ; and Irenseus, though 'he 
1 lived among the Gauls/ and confessed that he had grown 
unfamiliar with his native idiom, made it the vehicle of 
his Treatise against Heresies 2 . The first sermons which 
were preached at Rome were in Greek ; and to the present 
time the services of the Church of Rome bear clear traces 
that Greek was at first the language of its Liturgy. 
AfHca is the Meanwhile however, though Greek continued to be the 

ti^ue birthplace . ° 

of the Latin natural, if not the sole language of the Roman Church 3 , 

literaiure of ' . . . 

Christianity, the seeds of Latin Christianity were rapidly developing in 
Africa. Nothing is known in detail of the origin of the 
African churches. The Donatists classed them among 
' those last which should be first ;' and Augustine in his 



1 Otto, Prolegg. p. xxxv. Lumper, 
Hist. Patrum, it. p. 32 r. 

2 C. Jlcer. I. Pref. 3 : ovk iirify- 
Tr)o~€i$ d£ Trap* tj/jlQv nSu iv KeXrots 
5LaTpi(36vTO)v Kai irepl fiapfiapov did- 
\€ktqv rb Tr\eio~TOV da'Xo^ovpL^uu... 

3 Jerome speaks of Tertullian as 
the first Latin writer after Victor 
and Apollonius. Tictor was an 
African by birth, and yet he appears 



to have used Greek in the Pas- 
chal controversy. Polycrates at least 
addressed him in Greek : Euseb. //. 
E. V. 24. It is disputed whether 
Apollonius' defence was in Greek 
or in Latin. If it were in Latin, as 
seems likely, the place of its delivery 
— the Senate — sufficiently explains 
the fact, Cf. Lumper, jv. 3. 



i.] The Old Latin. 217 

reply merely affirms that 'some barbarian nations em- chap, m 
• braced Christianity after Africa ; bo that it is certain that 
'Africa was not the last to believe 1 .' The concession im- 
plies that Africa was converted late, and after the Apo- 
st lie times : Tertullian adds that it received the Gospel 
from Rome. But the rapidity of the spread of Christi- 
anity in Africa compensated for the lateness of its intro- 
duction. At the close of the second centurv Christians 
were found in every place and of every rank. They who 
were but of yesterday, Tertullian says' 2 , already fill the 
Palace, the Senate, the Forum, and the Camp, and leave 
to the heathen their temples only. To persecute the 
Christians was even then to decimate Carthage 3 . These 
fresh conquests oi the Roman Church preserved their 
distinct nationality by the retention of their proper lan- 
guage. Carthage, the second Rome, escaped the Gn-eeisui 
of the first. In Africa Greek was no longer a current 
dialect. A peculiar form of Latin, vigorous, elastic, and 
copious, however far removed from the grace and elegance 
of a classical standard, fitly expressed the spirit of Tertul- 
lian. But though we speak of Tertullian as the first Latin t 

■ c -ill ipt- i_ Latina 1* th* 

Father, it must be noticed that he speaks oi Latin as the o 7 .dest*}*ci- 

... . ^ nen 

language of his Church, and that his writings abound with 

Latin quotations of Scripture. He inherited an ecclesias- 

b! dialect, if not an ecclesiastical literature. It is then 

to Africa that we must look for the first traces of the 

L;:in ' Peshiuv the 'simple 5 Version of the West. An 1 

here a new difficulty arises. The Syrian Peshito has been 

preserved without any break in the succession in the keep- 

1 August c. Donat. Epist. [de credidisse ... Augustine answers:... 

-. BccUs.] c. 37 : De nobis in- nounullae barbane nationes etiam 

quiunt [Donatistse] dictum est Erunt post Africam crediderunt ; unde eer- 

primi qui erant novissimi. Ad Afri- turn sit Afrieam in ordine credendi 

cam enim Evangelium postmodum non esse novissimam. 

venit; et ideo nusquam litterarum :i. I. 37. c. :oo A.D. 

apostolicarum scriptum est Africam 3 ^1 



218 The Early Versions, [paet 

chap. in. ing of the churches for whose use it was made. But no 
image of their former life, however faint, lingers at Car- 
thage or Hippo. No church of Northern Africa, however 
corrupt, remains to testify to its ancient Bible. The Ver- 
sion was revised by a foreign scholar, and adopted by a 
foreign Church, until at last its independent existence in 
its original form has been questioned and even denied. 
Before any attempt is made to fix the date of its formation 
and the extent of its Canon, it will be necessary to shew 
that we are dealing with a reality, and not with a mere 
creation of a critic's fancy. 
Tertuiiian af- The language of Tertullian if candidly examined is 

firms the ex- ° ° J 

istenoeg a conclusive on the point. A few quotations will prove that 

Latin \ ersion . 

of the New ne distinctly recognized a current Latin Version, marked 

Testament m # J ° 7 

his time. by a peculiar character, and in some cases unsatisfactory 
to one conversant with the original text. 

John i- 1. 'Reason/ he says, 'is called by the Greeks Logos, a 

' word equivalent to Sermo in Latin. And so it is already 
'customary for our countrymen to say, through a rude 
' and simple translation (per simplicitatem interpreta- 
'tionis), that the Word of Revelation (sermo) was in 
'the beginning with God, while it is more correct to 
' regard the rational Word {ratio) as antecedent to this, 
'because God in the beginning was not manifested in 
' intercourse with man (sermonalis), but existed in self- 
' contemplation (rationalis) 1 .' From this it appears that 

1 Adv. Prax. c. 5 : [Rationem] ostendat : tamen et sic nihil interest. 

Grseci \byov dicunt, quo vocabulo It will be noticed that Tertullian 

etiam Sermonem appellamii3. Ideo- uses the word principium (so Vulg.) 

que jam in usu est nostrorum per and not primordium. He quotes 

simplicitatem interpretationis Sermo- the passage with that reading, so adv. 

nem dicere in primordio apud Deum Hermog. 20; adv. Prax. 13, 21. This 

fuisse, cum magis Rationem compe- is another mark of the independence 

tat antiquiorem haberi : quia non of the current translation. The ren- 

sermonalis a principio, sed rationalis dering of \6yos by sermo occurs in 

Deus etiam ante principium, et quia Cyprian, Testim. II. 3 ; but I am not 

ipse quoque Sermo ratione consistens aware that it is found in any existing 

priorem earn ut substantiam suam Manuscript. It certainly does not 



I.] The Old Latin. 219 

the Latin translation of St John's Gospel was already so chap. in. 
generally circulated as to mould the popular dialect ; and 
invested with sufficient authority to support a rendering 
capable of improvement. If there had been many rival 
translations in use, it is scarcely probable that they would 
all have exhibited the same • ' rudeness of style ;' or that a 
writer like Tertullian would have apologized for an inac- 
curacy found in some one of them. 

Again, when arguing to prove that a second marriage 
is only allowed to a woman ^ho had lost her first hus- 
band before her conversion to the Christian faith, inas- 
much as this second husband is indeed her first, he adds 
in reference to the passage of St Paul which he has i cor. v& 3 > 
quoted before : ' We must know that the phrase in the 
1 original Greek is not exactly the same as that which has 
'gained currency [among us] through a clever or simple 
'perversion of two syllables : If hoiuever her husband shall 
'fall asleep, as if it were said of the future... 1 ' The con- 
nexion of this passage with the last is evident. An am- 
biguous translation had passed into common use, and 
must therefore have been supported by some recognized 
claim. That this w r as grounded on the general reception 
of the version in which it was found is implied in the lan- 

oceur in any of the typical represen- earlier part of the chapter he quotes: 

tatives of the different classes of the si autem mortuus fuerit. For *oc- 

Old Latin. f^V^V A, al. read airodavrj. Is it pos- 

1 De Monog. c. u : Sciamus plane sible that the reading of F G {kckol- 

non sic esse in Giaeco authentico, ju-y&v) is a confusion of Koi/jajdy and 

quomodo in usum exiit per duarum K6KoijuLT]Tai (cf. eav otdafAev i John v. 

syllabarum aut callidam aut simpli- 15, <fcc.), and that Tertullian read 

cem eversionem : si autem dormierit the latter? If so, the ' eversio dua- 

vir ejus, quasi de futuro sonet...The rum syllabarum' {dormiit, dormierit) 

general meaning of Tertullian is would be intelligible ; otherwise we 

clear, but it is difficult to see the must I think* read dormiet. The 

force of his argument as applied to only variation which occurs in the 

dormierit: that tense is commonly Manuscripts is dormitionem acceperit. 

used to translate eav with the aor. No authority which 1 have seen 

(yet comp. Tert. 11. 393, edamus, gives dormiit. 
with Yulg. manducavcrimus). In an 



220 The Early Versions. [part 

chap. in. guage of Tertullian. The ' simple rendering ' and the 
'simple perversion' naturally refer to some literal Latin 
• translation already circulated in Africa. 
mn included ^ is tnen a fact beyond doubt that a Latin translation 
Apoltolio 1 o/ °^ some °f the books of the New Testament was current 
books. j n Africa in Tertullian's time, and sufficiently authorized 

by popular use to form the theological dialect of the 
country. It appears from another passage that this trans- 
lation embraced a collection of the Christian Scriptures. 
* We lay down/ he says, ' in the first place that the Evan- 
'gelical Instrument — [the collection of the authoritative 
'documents of the Gospel] — rests on Apostolic authority 1 .' 
The very name by which the collection was called wit- 
nessed to the ' simplicity' of the version. 'Marcion,' 
Tertullian writes just before, ' supposed that different gods 
'were the authors of the two Instruments, or, as it is 
'usual to speak, of the two Testaments 2 ' The word Tes- 
tament (Scadrj/cr)) would naturally find a place in a ' simple ' 
version ; otherwise it is not easy to see how it could have 
supplanted the more usual term 3 . 
The statements Thus far then the evidence of Tertullian decidedly 
reiauieuthe favours the belief that one Latin Version of the Holy 

LatinVersion. ^ . . -,, -, . A n . 

bcriptures was popularly used in Africa. It has however 
been argued, from the language which Augustine uses 
about two centuries later with reference to the origin and 
. multiplicity of the Latin Versions in his time, that this 
view of the unity and authority of the African Version is 

1 Adv. Marc. IV. 2. Instrumenta litis — Instrumentum im- 

2 Adv. Marc. IV. i:...duos deos peril (Suet. Vesp. 8)— Instruments 
dividens, proinde diversos, alterum publici auctoritas (Suet. Cat. 8). It 
alterius instrumenti, vel, quod niagis is a favourite word with Tertullian : 
usui est dicere, iestamenti... Apol. 1. 18, Instrumentum litteratu- 

3 The phrase Novum Testamentum rce ; adv. Marc. v. 2, Instrumentum 
was used both of the Christian dis- actorum ; de Resurrec. Carnis, 39, 
pensation and of the records of it: Apostolus per totum pene inslrumen- 
adv. Marc. iv. 22; adv. Prax. 3T. turn; de Spectac. 5, Instrumenta 

Instrumentum is used in late Latin ethnicarum litterarum. 
of public or official documents : e. g. 



I.] The Old Latin. 221 

untenable. 'Every one/ he says, 'in the first times of the chap. hi. 
'faith who gained possession of a Greek manuscript and 
'fancied that he had any little acquaintance with both 
'Greek and Latin ventured to translate itV But while we ^fJlJ'f, 

Ifltsi&iLLlly* 

admit that this may be a true account of the manner in 
which the first version was undertaken, yet the analogy of 
later times is sufficient to prove that the freedom of indi- 
vidual translation must have been soon limited by ecclesi- 
astical use. The translations of separate books would be 
combined into a volume. Some recension of the popular 
text would be adopted in the public services of each 
Church, and this would naturally become the standard 
text of the district over which its influence extended 2 . 
Even if it be proved that new Latin Versions 3 agree- 
ing more or less exactly with the African Version were 
made in Italy, Spain, and Gaul, as the congregations of 
Latin Christians increased in number and importance, 
that fact proves nothing against the existence of an African 
original. For if we call all these various Versions ' new/ 
we must limit the force of the word to a fresh revision and 
not to an independent translation of the whole. There is 
not the slightest trace of the existence of independent 
Latin Versions ; and the statements of Augustine are fully 

1 Be Boctr. Christ. n. 16 (xi.) : ecclesiastical recension in Aug. de 
(Jt enim cuique priniis fidei tempo- Cons. Evv. II. 128 (lxvi.) : Non au- 
ribus in man us venit codex graecus, tern ita se habet vel quod Joannes 
etaliquantulum facultatis sibiutrius- interponit, vel codices Ecclesiastici 
que linguae habere videbatur, ausus interpretation is usitatcv. Heisspeak- 
est interpretari. This can only refer, ing of the quotation (Zech. ix. 9) in 
I believe, to translation, and not to Matt. xxi. 7, compared with John xii. 
the interpolation of a translation 14, 15. 

already made. Lachm aim's ex plan- 3 The history of the English Ver- 

ation of the passage (Pref. p. Xiv.) is sions-may offer a parallel. The Ver- 

quite arbitrary, if I understand him. sion of Tyndale is related to these 

The Old Version arose out of private that followed it in the same way per- 

efforts, and was afterwards corrupted haps as the Vetus Latina to such re- 

by private interpolations ; but the censions (or • new Versions,' as they 

two facts are to be kept distinct. may be called) as the Itala. 

2 There is a clear trace of such an 



222 The Early Versions. [part 

chap. in. satisfied by supposing a series of ecclesiastical recensions 
of one fundamental text, which were in turn reproduced 
with variations and corrections in private Manuscripts. 
In this way there might well be said to be an ' infinite 
'variety of Latin interpreters 1 / while a particular recen- 
sion like the 'Itala' could be selected for general commen- 
dation 2 . 
ms evidence The outline which I have roughly drawn is fully 

eltistinodoc'u' justified by the documents which exhibit the various 
forms of the Latin Version before the time of Jerome. 
They are all united by a certain generic character, and 
again subdivided by specific differences, which will be 
capable I believe of clear and accurate distinction as soon 
as the quotations of the early Latin Fathers shall have been 
carefully collated with existing Manuscripts 3 . The writings 
of Tertullian offer the true starting point in the history of 
the Old Latin text 4 . His manner of citation is often 

1 Aug. de Doctr. Christ; II, 16 books only, with those of the other 
(xi.). This was no less true of the authorities: 

Old than of the New Testament. Cf. Acts iii. 19 — 21 ; de Resurr. Cam 
Aug.^.Lxxi.6(iv.);LXxxn.35(v.). 23 (iv. p. 255). 

2 Aug. de Doctr. Christ. 11. 22 — xiii. 46; de Fuga, 6 (in. p 
(xv.) : In ipsis autem interpretatio- 183). 

nibus Itala cseteris prseferatur ; nam — xv. 28; de Pudic. 12 (iv. p 

est verborum tenacior cum perspicui- 394-)- 

.tate sententiae. The last clause pro- Rom. v. 3, 4; c. Gnost. 13 (II. p 

bably points to the character by 383). 

which the Itala was distinguished — vi. 1 — 13; de Pudic. 17 (it 

from the Africana. If, as I believe, p. 414). 

• Tertullian 's quotations exhibit the — vi. 20 — 23; de Resurr. Cam 

earliest form of the latter, ' clearness 47 (in. p. 303). 

of expression' was certainly not one — vii. 2 — 6; de Monog. 13 (in 

of its merits. The connexion of Au- p. 163). 

gustine with Ambrose naturally ex- — viii. 35 — 39 ; c. Gnost. 13 (ir 

plains his preference for the Itala. p. 383). 

3 A rough classification of Manu- — xi. 33 ; adv. Hermog. 45 (n 
scripts is given in the Dictionary of p. 141). 

the Bible, s. v. Vulgate. — xii. 1 ; de Resurr. Cam. 47 

4 It will be evident I think that (ill. p. 306). 

Tertullian has preserved the original — xii. 10; adv. Marc. V. 14 (1. 

text of the African version from a p. 439). 

comparison of his readings in the The remarkable readings in the 

following passages, taken from two other books are equally striking. The 



I] 



The Old Latin. 



223 



loose, and he frequently exhibits various renderings of the chap. hi. 
same text, but even in such cases it is not difficult to 
determine the reading which he found in the current Ver- 
sion from that which he was himself inclined to substitute 
for it 1 . 

We have no means of tracing the history of the Ver- The history of 

the Vetus Le- 
sion before the time of Tertullian ; but its previous exist- tina cannot be 

■ traced further 

ence is attested by other contemporary evidence. Lhe back than the 

t • "r* t i-i-ii m time °- f Ter ~ 

Latin translation ot lrenseus was probably known to ler- tuiuan. 
tullian 2 ; and the Scriptural quotations which occur in it 
were evidently taken from some foreign source, and not 
rendered by the translator 3 . That this source was no 
other than a recension of the Vetus Latina appears from 
the coincidence of readings which it exhibits with the 
most trustworthy Manuscripts of the Version 4 . In other 



Version which Tertullian used was 
marked by the use of Greek words, 
as machcera (adv. Marc. IV. 29 ; 
c. Gnost. 13) ; sophia (adv. Her- 
mog. 45) ; choicus (de Resurr. Cam. 
49). Some peculiar words are of 
frequent occurrence, e.g. tingo (/3a- 
TTTifa) — delinquentia (afxaprla). 

1 As a specimen of the text which 
Tertullian's quotations exhibit I have 
given his various readings in two 
chapters. The references are to the 
marginal pages of Senders edition. 
Matt. i. 1 : genitura? (in. 392) for 
generationis. 
16: geueravit (genuit) Jo- 
seph "virum M arise, ex (de) 
qua nascitur (natus est) Chris- 
tus (in. 387). 

20 : nam quod (quod enim) 

...(l, c). 

23: ecce virgo concipiet 

(so a b c) in utero et pariet 
filium (ill. 381) cujus et voca- 
lltur (Iren. 452 vocabunt) no- 
men Emmanuel... (11. 25 7). 
Rom. i. 8 : gratias agit Deo per 
dominum nostrum (om.) Jesum 
Christum (11. 261). 



Bom. i. 16, 17: non enim me pu- 
det Evangelii (erubesco Evan- 
gelium) . . . Judaeo (om. primurn, 
with BG, al.) et Graeco ; quia 
justitia (j ustitia enim) . . . (1. 

430- 

— — 18 : om. omnem, eorum. 

(I. c). 

— — 20 : invisibilia enim ejus 
(ipsius) Zicondiiione (creatura) 
mundi de factitamentis (per ca 
quo?, facta sunt) intellecta 
visuntur (conspiciuniur) (iv. 
250). Cf. 11. 141 : Invisi- 
bilia ejus ab institutione mun- 
di fact is ejus (so Hil.) con- 
spiciuntur. 

2 Cf. Grabe, Pvolcg. ad Iren, 11. 
3 (11. p. 36, ed. Stieren). 

3 Cf. Lachmann, N. T. Pref. p. 
X. f. 

4 The relation of the text of Ter- 
tullian's quotations to that of the 
Latin Translation of Irenaeus is very- 
interesting, as may.be seen from the 
following examples. The variations 
from the Vulgate (V) (Lachmann) 
are given in Italics : 

Matt. i. 1. Generationis, Iren. 471, 



224 The Early Versions. [part 

chap. in. words the Vetus Latino, is recognized in the first Latin 
literature of the Church : it can be traced back as far as 
the earliest records of Latin Christianity, and every cir- 
cumstance connected with it indicates the most remote 
antiquity. But in the absence of further evidence we 
cannot attempt to fix more than the inferior limit of its 
date ; and even that cannot be done with certainty, owing 
to the doubtful chronology of Tertullian's life. Briefly 
however the case may be stated thus. If the Version was, 
as has been seen, generally in use in Africa in his time, 
and had been in circulation sufficiently long to stereotype 
the meaning of particular phrases, we cannot allow less 
than twenty years for its publication and spread : and if 
we take into account its extension into Gaul and its recep- 
tion there, that period will seem too short. Now the be- 
Thein/erior ginning of Tertullian's literary activity cannot be placed 
date. later than c. 190 A.D., and we shall thus obtain the date 

170 A.D. as that before which the Version must have been 
made. How much more ancient it really is cannot yet be 
discovered. Not only is the character of the Version itself 
a proof of its extreme age; but the mutual relations of 

505 (ed. Stieren) : Geniturce, (As Vulg. Iren. 774; Tert. 

Tert. n. 199.) 

Matt. i. 20. Quod enim hahet in Matt. iv. 4. Non in pane tantum 

uterd {ventre), Iren. 505, 638: (c. tr.) vivit, Iren. 774; Non 

Quod in ea natum est, Tert. in solo pane (so a ; tr. V.) 

— iii. 7, 8. Cf. Luke iii. 7 : vivit, Tert. ir. 313. 
Progenies — fructum, Iren. - — — 6. Iren. 775 ; Si tu es 

457: G-enimina fructum films Dei, dejice te hinc : 

(fructus, iv. 393), Tert. II. Scriptum est enim quod man- 

, 95. davit an gel is suis (tr.) super 

— iii. 12. Palam Jidbens in te, ut te manibus suis tollant, 
manu ejus ad emundandam necubi ad lapidem pedem 
aream suam, Iren. 569: Pa- tuum offendas (tr.), Tert. IL 
lam (al. ventilabrum) in 189. 

manu portat ad purgandam Tertullian and the Translator of 

aream suam, Tert. 11. 4. Cf. Irenseus represent respectively, I 

III. 172. believe, the original African and 

— iv. 3. Si tu es filius Dei, Gallic recensions of the Vetus La- 
Iren. 576. Tert. II. 189. Una. 



I.] The Old Latin, 225 

different parts of it shew that it was made originally by ciiai\ hi. 
different hands ; and if so, it is natural to conjecture that 
it was coeval with the introduction of Christianity into . 
Africa, and the result of the spontaneous efforts of African 
Christians. 

The Canon of the Old Latin Version coincided I be- Th*Ccm**<tf 
lieve exactly with that of the Muratorian fragment. l%™comc;<i<d 
contained the Four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of ^^^ 
St Paul, the three Catholic Epistles of St John, the first 
Epistle of St Peter, the Epistle of St Jude, and the Apo- 
calypse. To these the Epistle to. the Hebrews was added 
subsequently, but before the time of Tertullian, and with- 
out the author's name. There is no external evidence to 
shew that the Epistle of St James or the second Epistle of 
St Peter was included in the Vetus Latino. The earliest 
Latin testimonies to both of them, so far as I am aware, 
are those of Hilary, Jerome, and Rufmus in his Latin 
Version of Origen 1 . 

The Manuscripts in which the Old Latin Version is TUMamtr 

' script* *>r tht 

found are few, but some of them are of great antiquity. Version qf 
In the Gospels Lachmann made use of four, of which one tie Gospels, 
belongs to the fourth, and another to the fourth or fifth 
century 2 . To these Tischendorf has since added several 
others more or less perfect, ranging in date from the fifth to 
the eleventh century ; and our own Libraries contain seve- 
ral other copies of great interest. The version of the Acts eteAct^ 
is contained in three Manuscripts of the sixth and eighth 
centuries, which however clearly represent originals of 
much earlier date. The Pauline Epistles are represented the Epistle* of 
by several Manuscripts of the sixth and ninth centuries: 

1 It is impossible to lay any stress to prove the existence of the Epistle 

on the passage in Firmilian, ap.Cypr. in a Latin Version. 
Ep. lxxv. Even if Irenasus himself 2 I have given a full list of these 

was acquainted with the Epistle of Manuscripts in the Dictionary of the 

St James (& Hcer. v. I. i), no ar- Bible, s. v. Vulgate, 
gument can be built on the reference 

C. Q 



226 The Early Versions. [part 

chap. in. but there is no Manuscript which gives the original form of 
the catholic the text of the Catholic Epistles. The Codex Bezce has 

Epistles. 

alone preserved a fragment of the third Epistle of St John, 
which is found immediately before the Acts ; and as it is 
expressly stated that the Acts follows, it appears that the 
Epistle of St Jude was either omitted or transposed. Two 
other early Manuscripts which contain respectively the 
Epistle of St James, and fragments of the Epistle of St 
James and of the first Epistle of St Peter, give the text of 
the Italian recension and not of the Vetus Latina. There 
is no ante-Hieronymian Manuscript of the second Epistle 
of St Peter, of the Epistle of St Jude, or of the Apo- 
calypse. 
The evidence The evidence of Tertullian as to the Old Latin Canon 

as to the ca- may be taken to complete that which is derived directlv 

no ai 'city of •*«- • TT . -, -, -,. -, -. -. 

the Epistle of from Manuscripts. His language leaves little doubt as to 
the position which the Epistle of St Jude and that to the 
Hebrews occupied in the African Church. The former he 
assigns directly to the Apostle Jude ; and if so, its canoni- 
city in the strictest sense was assured 1 . And since the 
reference is made without any limitation or expression of 
doubt, since it is indeed made in order to prove the autho- 
rity of the Book of Enoch, as if the quotation by St Jude 
were decisive, it may be assumed that Tertullian found the 
book in the ' New Testament ' of his Church. 

the Epistle to ' On the other hand his single direct reference to the 
ebrews, j^ gt | e to foe Hebrews leads to the opposite conclusion. 
After appealing to the testimony of the Apostles in sup- 
port of his Montanist views of Christian discipline, and 
bringing forward passages from most of the Epistles of St 
Paul and from the Apocalypse and first Epistle of St John, 
he says 2 , 'The discipline of the Apostles is thus clear and 

1 Tertull. de Cult. Fcem. c. 3. 

2 Tertull. de Pudic. c. 20. See Part 11. Chap. II. for the original, and p. 229, 



L] The Old Latin, 227 

'decisive. ...I wish however, though it be superfluous, to chap. hi. 
' bring forward also the testimony of a companion of the 
1 Apostles, well fitted to confirm the discipline of his 
' teachers on the point before us. For there is extant an 
' Epistle to the Hebrews which bears the name of Bar- 

* nabas. The writer has consequently adequate authority, 

* as being one whom St Paul placed beside himself in the * Cor. ix. 6. 
' point of continence ; and certainly the Epistle of Barna- 

1 bas is more commonly received among the Churches than 

* the Apocryphal Shepherd of adulterers/ He then quotes 
with very remarkable various readings 1 Hebr. vi. 4 — 8, 
and concludes by saying : ' One w T ho had learnt from the 
'Apostles, and had taught with the Apostles, knew this, 
e that a second repentance was never promised by the Apo- 
' sties to an adulterer or fornicator.' If the Epistle had 
formed part of the African Canon, it is impossible that 
Tertullian should have spoken thus : for the passage bore 
more directly on his argument than any other, and yet he 
introduces it only as a secondary testimony. The book 
was certainly received with respect ; but still it could be 
compared with the Shepherd, which at least made no claim 
to Apostolicity. And it is by this mark that Tertullian 
distinguishes between the Epistle of St Jude and the Epi- 

1 Tertull. I. c. : Impossibile est super se bibens imbrem) et pepcrit 

enim eos qui semel illuminati sunt herbam aptam his propter quos el 

(V. tr.) et donum coeleste gustave- colitur (V. generans h. opportunam 

runt (V. tr. gustav. etiam d. a), et Mis a quibus c.) benedictionem dei 

partici paver unt spiritoi sanc^m (V. consequitur (V. accipit b. a deo) ; 

participes sunt facti sp. s.), et verbura proferens autem spinas (V. + etc tri- 

dei didce gustaverunt (V. tr. gustav. bulos) reproba (V. + est) et mixledic- 

nihilominus bonum d. v.), Occident e tioni (V. maledicto) proxima, cujus 

jam cevo cum exciderint (V. virtutes- finis in eocustionem (V. c. consumrna- 

que S03culi renturi et prolapsi sunt) tio in combustion em). 

rursus revocari in pcenitentiam (V. Tlie number. and character of the 

renovari r. ad po3n.) y ?'efigentes cruci various readings perhaps justify the 

(V. rursum cruci figentes) in semet- belief that the translation given was 

ipsos (V. sibimet ipsis) filium dei et made by Tertullian himself. It is 

dedecorantes (V. ostentui habentes). certainly independent of that pre- 

Terra enim quoz bibit so3pius cfeveni- served in the Vulgate and that in 

entem in se humorem (V. so?pe ven. the Claromontane Manuscript. 

Q % 



228 The Early Versions. [part 

chap. in. stle [of Barnabas] to the Hebrews. The one was stamped 
with the mark of the Apostle : the other was neither that, 
nor yet supported by direct Apostolic sanction. 
Sw fiApo " Tertullian quotes the Apocalypse very frequently, and 

ascribes it positively to St John, though he notices the 
objections of Marcion. The text of his quotations exhibits 
a general agreement with that of the Vulgate ; and it is 
evident that the version of which he made use was not 
essentially different from that current in later times 1 . 
There is then every reason to believe that when he wrote 
. the book was generally circulated in Africa; and as the 
translation then received retained its hold on the Church, 
it is probable that it was supported by ecclesiastical use. 
In other words everything tends to shew that the Apo- 
calypse was acknowledged in Africa from the earliest times 
as Canonical Scripture. 
luffHonfo/ I n ^ W0 °f ^ S treatises Tertullian appears to give a 

xlnwvlalcard- ge nera l summary of the contents of the Latin New Testa- 
i'li,i.° Teriul ' m ent of his time 2 . In one 3 after quoting passages from 
the Old Testament he continues: 'This is enough from 
' the Projjhetic Instrument: I appeal now to the Gospels' 
Passages from St Matthew, St Luke, and St John, follow 
in order. Afterwards comes a reference to the Apocalypse 

1 Ths following are some of the maximam p>^ssuram, nisi 

. most important various readings : poenitentiam egerint ope- 

Apoc. i. 6: Regnum quuque nos et rum eju<?. de Pudic. c. 19. 

sacerdotes de Exhort Apoc. vii. 14: Hi sunt qui veni- 

Cast. c. 7. unt ex ilia pressura mag- 

ii. 20 — 23: Jezebel quas se na, et laverunt vestimen- 

prophseten dicit et docet turn suum et candidave- 

atqtie seducit servos meos runt ipsum in sanguine 

ad iomicsLndum et edcn- agni. c. Gnost. c. 12. 

dum de idolothytis. Et 2 This was first pointed out by 

largitus sum illi spatium Credner and Volkmar: Credner, 

temporis ut poenitentiam Geschichte d. N. T. Kanon, pp. 171 ff.; 

iniret, nee vult earn inire 364 ff. 

nomine fornicationis. Ec- 3 De Resurr. Cam. cc. 3$, 38, 39, 

ce dabo earn in lectum, et 40. This treatise was Written e. 

mcechos ejus cum ipsa in a.d. 207 — 10. 



I.] The Old Latin. 229 

as contained in the Instrument of John ; and then a gene- chap. hi. 
ral reference to the Apostolic Instruments 1 . The first quo- 
tations under this head are from the Acts, and then from 
most of the Epistles in the Instrument [of PauT\. The 
omission of St Mark's Gospel shews that the enumeration 
is not complete; but the broad distinction of the different 
Instruments points to the existence of distinct groups of 
books, which may have been separately circulated. In 
another treatise, probably of a somewhat earlier date 2 , 
Tertullian observes a similar arrangement. First he 
quotes the Gospels, or rather as ho calls it 'the Gospel;' 
and then appeals to the Apostolic Instrument in which 
again he includes the Acts and the Epistles of St Paul. 
Afterwards ' not to dwell always on Paul ' he notices the 
Apocalypse and first Epistle of St John, and speaks of a 
passage from the last chapter as c the close of his writing.' i John r. 16. 
And then it is, when he has noticed the l discipline of the 
'Apostles,' that he adds as it were over and above ' a testi- 
1 mony of a companion of the Apostles ' taken from ' the 
'Epistle of Barnabas to the Hebrews 3 .' The absence of all 
mention of the first Epistle of St Peter is remarkable ; and 
it has been supposed with some probability that he was 
not acquainted with it till the close of his life, and then 
only from the Greek. 

Internal evidence is not wanting to confirm the con- Thsianauaff* 

• n rm 1- • « °- fthe V**9<*t* 

elusions drawn from other sources. The peculiarities oi generally. 
language in different parts of the Vulgate offer a most 
interesting field for inquiry. Jerome's revision may have 
done something to assimilate the style of the whole, yet 

1 c. 39: Resurrection em Aposto- 2 Be Pudicitia, cc. 6, 12, 19. 

licaquoquelnstrumenta testantur... 3 c. 20: Disciplina igitur Aposto- 

Tunc et Apostolus [Paulus] per to- lorum proprie quidem instruit...Volo 

turn pene Instrumentum fidem hujus tamen ex redundantia alicujus etiam 

spei corroborare curavit. c. 40: Nihil comitis Apostolorum testimonium su- 

autem mirum si et ex ipsius [Pauli] perducere... Comp. Pt. II. ch. 11. 

Instrumento captentur argumenta... and p. 226 f. 



230 The Early Versions. [part 

chap. in. sufficient traces of the original text remain to distinguish 
the hand of various translators. Indeed in the Epistles 
Jerome's work seems to have been most perfunctory, and 
to have consisted in little more than the selection and 
partial revision of some one copy. But however tempting 
it might be to prosecute the inquiry at length, it would be 
superfluous at present to do more than point out how far 
it bears on those books which we suppose not to have 
formed part of the original African Canon 1 . 
The langvaje The second Epistle of St Peter offers the best oppor- 
tunity for testing the worth of the investigation. If we 
suppose that it was at once received into the Canon like 
the first Epistle 2 , it would in all probability have been 
translated by the same person, as seems to have been the 
case with the Gospel of St Luke and the Acts, though 
their connexion is less obvious; and while every allow- 
ance is made for the difference in style iD the original 
Epistles, we must look for the same rendering of the same 
phrases. But when on the contrary it appears that the 



3 F. P. Dutripon's Concordantlce or less open to suspicion. In the 
Bibliorum Sacrorum Vulgatce Edilio- treatise c. Gnosticos the references 
nis, Parisiis, mdcccliii. (the dates on are long and explicit : c. \i : Cui po- 
the title vary) appears to be com- tius [Christus] figuram vocis suae de- 
plete and satisfactory as far as the clarasset quam cui effigiem gloriae 
Sixtine text is concerned, but it is suae mutavit, Petro,Jaeobo, Johanni, 
impossible not to regret the absence et postea Paulo ?... Petrus quidem ad 
of all reference to important various Ponticos quanta enim inquit gloria, 
readings. &c. I Peter ii. 20, 21; et rursus : 

2 It must however be noticed that 1 Peter iv. 12 — 16. Similarly there 

the actual traces of the early use of is a possible but tacit reference to 

1 Peter in the Latin Churches are 1 Peter ii. 22 in c. Judceos, 10. The 

very scanty. There is not the least supposed reference in de Exhort. Cast. 

evidence to shew that its authority 1 will not hold ; and that in adv. 

was ever disputed, but on the other Marc. IV. 1 3 is most doubtful. The 

hand it does not seem to have been Epistle is constantly quoted by Cy- 

much read. The Epistle is not men- prian, and under the title ad Ponti- 

tioned in the Muratorian Canon, cos in Testim. III. 36 ; and all the Ca- 

though no stress can be laid upon tholic Epistles are contained in the 

that fact. It is more strange that ClaromontaneStichometry. SeeApp. 

Tertullian quotes it only twice, and D. No. XVI. 
that too in writings which are more 



i.] The Old Latin. 231 

Latin text of the Epistle not only exhibits constant and chap, hi: 
remarkable differences from the text of other parts of the 
Vulgate, but also differs from the first Epistle in the ren- 
derings of words common to both : when it further appears 
that it differs no less clearly from the Epistle of St Jude 
(which was received in the African Church) in those parts 
which axe almost identical in the Greek : then the suppo- 
sition that it was admitted into the Canon at the same 
time with them becomes at once unnatural 1 . It is indeed 
possible that the two Epistles may have been received at 
the same time and yet have found different translators. 
The Epistle of St Jude and the second Epistle of St Peter 
may have been translated independently, and yet both 
have been admitted together into the Canon. But when 
the silence of Tertullian is viewed in connexion with the 
character of the version of the latter Epistle, the natural 
conclusion is that in his time it was as yet untranslated. 
The two lines of evidence mutually support each other. 

The translation of St James's Epistle has several p£cu- o/st -James 
liar renderings ; but in this case no more can be said with 
confidence than that it was the work of a special translator. 

1 The following examples will con- i. 14; ii. ir; iv. 2, 3); so also 

firm the statements made in the text : 2 Pet. ii. 18. 

I. Differences from the general Trfpeiv, reservare (ii. 4, 9, 17; iii. 
renderings of the Vulgate: 7); conservare (1 Pet. i. 4). 

Koivuvbs, fconsors (i. 4) ; eyKpd- III. Differences from the trans- 

reca, fabsthientia (i. 6); wXeov- lation of St Jude: 

dfav, superare (L 8); apybs, dXoyos, ffinratioiiabilis (ii. 12); 

vacuus (id.) ; <rirovMfav, sata- mutus (Jude 10). 

gcre (i. 10; iii. 14; i. 15, dare tpdeipecrdai, pcrire {id.); corrumpi 

operant); Trapovala, prcesentia {id.) 

[of Christ] (i. 16); eiriyvuvis, avveuwx^fQcu, luxuriare vobiscum 

cognitlo (i. 2, 3, 8; ii. 20; cf. ( r 3)> ffconvirari {12). 

Rom. iii. 20?); apxaws, ffori- 56£cu, scctce (10) ; majestas (8). 

ginalis (ii. 5). o^ftcpos rod (tkStovs, calic/o tcne- 

II. Differences from the render- brarum (17); procella tcnebra- 
ings in 1 Peter: rum (13). 

irX-qd uvea doa., ad/mpleri ([.2); mid- "Words marked + occur now r here 

tiplicari (1 Pet. i. 2). else in the New Testament Vulgate : 

eindvpLla, concupiscent i a (i. 4 ; ii. those marked ft occur nowhere else 

10; iii. 3); desiderium (1 Pet. in the whole Vulgate. 



232 



The Early Versions. 



[part 



of the Epistle 
to the He- 
brews. 



chap. hi. One or two words indeed appear to me to indicate that it 
was made later than the translations of the acknowledged 
books, but they cannot be urged as conclusive 1 . 

The Latin text of the Epistle to the Hebrews exhibits 
the most remarkable phenomena. As it stands in the 
Vulgate it is marked by numerous singularities of language 
and inaccuracies of translation ; but the readings of the 
Claromontane Manuscript are most interesting and import- 
ant. Sometimes the translator in his anxiety to preserve 
the letter of the original employs words of no authority : 
sometimes he adapts the Latin to the Greek form : some- 
times he paraphrases a participial sentence to avoid the 
ambiguity of a literal rendering : and again sometimes he 
entirely perverts the meaning of the author by neglecting 
the secondary meanings of Greek words 2 . The translation 
was evidently made at a very early period ; but it was not 
made by any of those whose work can be traced in other 
parts of the New Testament, and apparently it was not 
submitted to that revision which necessarily attended the 
habitual use of Scripture in the services of the Church. 



1 The following peculiarities may 
be noticed in the version of St James: 

airXQs, ifaffluenter (i. 5); a7r\6- 
TTjs, simplicitas (2 Cor. viii. 2 ; 
ix. 1 1, <kc.) 

oteadai, cestimare (i. 7) ; cxistimare 
(Phil. i. 17). 
' ay<nrr)ToL, dilecti, dilectissimi (i. 
16, 19; ii. 5; so Hebr. vi. 9; 
1 Cor. xv. 58) ; elsewhere caris- 
simi (twenty times). 

a-n/JLafait, ^exhonorare (ii. 6) ; else- 
where inhonorare, contumelia 
afficere. 

aufriv, salvare (I. 21; v. 15, 20); 
generally salvum facere, salvus 
esse and fieri. 

irXypouv, supplere (ii. 23); else- 
where implcre, adimplere. 

ayvos, pudicus (iii. 17, so Phil. iv. 
8) ; elsewhere castas, and once 



sanctus. 

airoTideaOai, abjicere (i. it, so 
Rom. xiii. 12); elsewhere depo- 
nere (six times). 

paKapifa, ibeatifico (v. 11). 

irokefxelv, fbclligero (iv. 2). 

oIktL P [jlwv, fmiserator (v. 11). 

2 The Latin text of the Mann- 
script is almost incredibly corrupt,, 
from the ignorance of the tran- 
scriber, who accommodated the ter- 
minations of the words, and often 
the words themselves, to his ele- 
mentary conceptions of grammar. 
Still a reference to the readings in 
the following passages will justify 
the statements which I have made : 
i. 6, 10, 14; ii. 1— 3» J 5> *8; iii- 1; 
iv. 1, 3, 13; v. n; vi. 8, 16; vii. 18; 
x. 33- 



l] The Old Latin. 233 

The Claromontane text of the Epistle to the Hebrews re- chap. hi. 
presents I believe more completely than any other Manu- 
script the simplest form of the Vetus Latina; but from 
the very fact that the text of this Epistle exhibits more 
marked peculiarities than are found in any of the Pauline 
Epistles, it follows that it occupies a peculiar position. In 
other words, internal evidence, as far as it reaches, confirms 
the belief that the Epistle to the Hebrews, though known 
in Africa as early perhaps as any other book of the New 
Testament, was not admitted at first into the African 
Canon. * The custom of the Latins,' as Jerome said even 
in his time, ' received it not 1 / 

Only a few words are needed to sum up the testimony The impert- 
of these most ancient Versions to our Canon of the New evidence of 
Testament. Their voice is one to which we cannot refuse versions. 
to listen. They give the testimony of Churches, and not 
of individuals. They are sanctioned by public use, and not 
only supported by private criticism. Combined with the 
original Greek they represent the New Testament Scrip- 
tures as they were read throughout the whole of Christen- 
dom towards the close of the second century. Even to the 
present day they have maintained their place in the ser- 
vices of a vast majority of Christians, though the languages 
in which they were written only live now so far as they 
have supplied the materials for the construction of later 
dialects. They furnish a proof of the authority of the 
books which they contain, wide-spread, continuous, reach- 
ing to the utmost verge of our historic records. Their real 
weight is even greater than this ; for when history first 
speaks of them it speaks as of that which was recognized 
as a heritage from an earlier period, which cannot have 
been long after the days of the Apostles. 

1 It may be added that in the called the Epistle of Barnabas. See 
Claromontane Stichomctry it is still App. D. No. xvi. 



234 



The Early Versions. 



[part 



CHAP. III. 

The results 
of the imper- 
fection of 

the Syrian 
Canon. 



The combined 
testimony of 
the two Ver- 
sion*. 



Both Canons however are imperfect ; but their very im- 
perfection is not without its lesson. The Western Church 
has indeed as we believe under the guidance of Providence 
completed the sum of her treasures ; but the East has clung 
hitherto to its earliest decision. Individual writers have 
accepted the full Canon of the West ; but even Ephrem 
Syrus failed to influence the judgment of his Church. And 
can this element of fixity be without its influence on our 
estimate of the basis of the Syrian Canon ? Can that 
which was guarded so jealously have been made without 
care ? Can that which was received without hesitation by 
Churches which differed on grave doctrines have been 
formed originally without the sanction of some power from 
which it was felt that there was no appeal ? The Canon 
fails in completeness, but that is its single error. Succeed- 
ing ages registered their belief in the exclusive originative 
power of the first age, when they refused to change what 
that had determined. So far they witnessed to a great 
truth ; but in practice that truth can only be realized by 
a perfect induction. And their error arose not from the 
principle of conservatism on which it rested, but from the 
imperfect data by which the sum of Apostolic teaching 
was determined. 

To obtain a complete idea of the judgment of the 
Church we must combine the two Canons ; and then it will 
•be found that of the books which we receive one only, the 
second Epistle of St Peter, wants the earliest public sanc- 
tion of ecclesiastical use as an Apostolic work. In other 
words, by enlarging our view so as to comprehend the 
whole of Christendom and unite the different lines of 
Apostolic tradition, we obtain with one exception a perfect 
New Testament, without the admixture of any foreign ele- 
ment. The testimony of Churches confirms and illustrates 
the testimony of Christians. There is but one difference. 



I.] The Old Latin. 235 

Individual writers vary in the degree of respect which they chap, hi 
shew to Apocryphal writings, and the same is true also in 
a less degree of single Churches ; but the voice of the Catho- . 
lie Church definitely and unhesitatingly excluded them 
from the Canon. And in this decision as to the narrow 
limits which they fixed to the Canon, it appears that they 
were guided by local and direct knowledge. The Epistle f££% 
to the Hebrews and the Epistle of St James were at once i ^^ eUr 
received in the Churches to which they were specially 
directed ; and external circumstances help us to explain 
more exactly the facts of their history. The Epistle of St 
James was not only distinctly addressed to Jews, but as it 
seems was also written in Palestine. It cannot therefore 
be surprising that the Latin Churches were for some time 
ignorant of its existence. The Epistle to the Hebrews on 
the contrary was probably written from Italy, though it 
was destined especially for Hebrew converts. And thus 
the letter was known in the Latin Churches, though they 
hesitated to admit it into the Canon, believing that it was 
not written by the hand of St Paul. The Apocalypse 
again was acknowledged from the earliest time in the scene 
of St John's labours : and the very indefiniteness of the 
addresses of the Epistle of St Jude and of the second Epi- 
stle of St Peter may have tended to retard and limit their 
spread. 

These considerations however belong to another place ; 
but it? is in this way, by combination with collateral evi- 
dence internal and external, that the earliest Versions are 
proved to occupy an important position in the history of 
the Canon. A fuller investigation would I believe esta- 
blish many interesting results, especially if pursued with a 
constant reference to the present state of the Greek text ; 
but for our immediate purpose the general outline which 
has been given is sufficiently accurate and comprehensive. 



236 The Early Versions. [part i. 

char hi. It is enough to shew that the Versions exhibit a Canon 
practically — that they sanction no Apocryphal book — that 
they speak with the voice of early Christendom- — that they 
go back to a period so remote as to precede all historic 
records of the Churches in which they were used. 



CHAPTER IV. 



THE EAELY HERETICS. 



Kon periclito'r diccre ipsas quoque Scripturas sic esse ex Dei voluniatt 
dispositas ut hcureticls matcrias, &uhministrarerit. 

Tertullia xus> 



THE New Testament recognizes the existence of parties chap. it. 
and heresies in the Christian society from its first ance^a'te' 
origin ; and conversely the earliest false teachers witness hereunto 
more or less clearly to the existence and reception of our 
Canonical Books. The authority of the collection of the 
Christian Scriptures rests necessarily on other proof, but 
still the acknowledgment of their authenticity in detail by 
conflicting sects confirms with independent weight the 
results which we have already obtained. It cannot be 
supposed that those who cast aside the teaching of the 
Church on other points would hare been willing to uphold 
its judgment on Holy Scripture unless it had been sup- 
ported by competent evidence. Custom and reverence 
might mould the belief of those within the Catholic com- 
munion, but separatists left themselves no positive ground 
for the reception of the Apostolic books but the testimony 
of history. 

Still further: even negatively the history of the ante- uerelnadecn 
Nicene heresies establishes our general conclusions. The ^ °NewT% 
first three centuries were marked by long and resolute hutorieai 
struggles within and without the Church. Almost every early herJtks. 



238 The Early Heretics. [part 

chap. iv. point in the Christian Creed was canvassed and denied in 
turn. The power of Judaism, strong in wide-spread influ- 
ence and sensuous attractions, first sought to confine Chris- 
tianity within its own sphere, and then to embody itself in 
the new faith. The spirit of Gnosticism, keen, restless, 
and self-confident, seems to have exhausted every combi- 
nation of Christianity and philosophy. Mani announced 
himself as divinely commissioned to reform and reinstate 
the whole fabric of the faith once (ct7ra£) delivered to the 
saints. And still it cannot be shewn that the Canon of 
( acknowledged ' books was ever assailed on historic grounds 
up to the period of its final recognition. Different books, 
or classes of books, were rejected from time to time, but 
no attempt was made to justify the measure by outward 
testimony. A partial view of Christianity was substituted 
for its complete form, and the Scriptures were judged by 
an arbitrary standard of doctrine. The new systems were 
not based on any historical reconstruction of the Canon, 
but the contents of the Canon were limited by subjective 
systems of Christianity. 

^iHontiS§ ^ n * s im P or tant fact did not escape the notice of the 

f acL champions of Catholic truth. Irenseus, Tertullian, Origen, 

and later writers, insist much and earnestly on the fact 
that heretics sought to maintain their own doctrines from 
the Canonical books, fulfilling the very prophecy therein 

i cor. xi. 19. .contained that there must needs be heresies. 'So great is 
' the surety of the Gospels, that even the very heretics bear 
■ witness to them ; so that each one of them taking the 
' Gospels as his starting-point endeavours thereby to rnain- 
' tain his own teaching 1 / 'They profess/ says Tertullian, 
' to appeal to the Scriptures : they urge arguments from 
1 the Scriptures :' and then he adds indignantly, ' as if they 

1 Iren. c. Hcer. in. 11. 7. 



I.] Tlie Early Heretics. 239 

1 could draw arguments about matters of faith from any chap. iv. 
' other source than the records of faith V 

It has however been already noticed that they did not The testimony 

J -ni of heretics 

all accept the whole Canon. How far they really used our however s» 
Scriptures as authoritative will appear in the course of 
our inquiry ; at present I only call attention to the gene- 
ral truth that they recognized an authoritative written 
word, which either wholly or in part coincided with our 
own. And the very fact that they did make choice of 
certain books whereon to rest their teaching shews that 
the use of Scripture was not a mere concession to their 
opponents, but the expression of their own belief. 

We have seen that even in the Catholic Church various 
tendencies and lines of belief are reflected in the special 
use made by different Fathers of groups of Apostolic 
writings. In heretical books the same result is found in 
an exaggerated form. In this as in everything else heresy 
is special, limited, partial, where the Church is general, 
wide, catholic. Differences which are exalted in the one 
into party characteristics and tests of communion or divi- 
sion are tolerated in the other as imperfect and isolated 
growths or possible springs of some future and beneficent 
development. The one will define everything sharply 
now, whether in criticism or dogma or discipline : the 
other is content to know that the end is not yet, and to 
believe that in the broad range of truth ' God fulfils Him- 
* self in many ways/ 

But apart from this essential difference in the treat- progressive. 
ment of the whole subject, the character of the testimony 
of heretical writers to the books of the New Testament is 
strictly analogous to that of the Fathers in its progressive 

1 De Pressor, Hcer. c. 14 : Sed ipsi [non] possent de rebus fidei nisi ex 
de scripturis agunt et de scripturis litteris fidei. Cf. Lardner's History 
suadent ! Aliunde scilicet suadere of Heretics, Bk. I. § 10, 



240 



The Early Heretics, 



[part 



CHAP. IV. 



development. In the first age, an oral Gospel, so to speak, 
was everywhere current ; and all who assumed the name of 
Christ sought to establish their doctrine by His traditional 
teaching. Controversies were conducted by arguments 
from the Old Testament Scriptures, or by appeals to gene- 
ral principles and known facts. The conception of a defi- 
nite New Testament was wholly foreign to the time. And 
while it has been seen how little can be found in the 
scanty writings of the first age to prove the peculiar autho- 
rity of the Gospels and the Epistles, those who seceded 
from the company of the Apostles necessarily refused to 
be ruled by their opinions. 



The/undo,- ' 
mental anta- 
gonism in 
heresy frcm 

the first. 



§ i. The Heretical Teachers of the Apostolic Age. 
Simon Magus — Menan der — Cerinthus. 

The earliest group of heretical teachers exhibits in 

striking contrast the two antagonistic principles of religious 

error. Mysticism on the one hand and Legalism on the 

other appear in clear conflict. By both the Work and 

Person of Christ are disparaged and set aside. In Simon 

Magus and Menander we may see the embodiment of the 

iintichristian element of the Gentile world 1 : in Cerinthus 

. the embodiment of the antichristian element of Judaism. 

Catholic truth seems to be the only explanation of their 

simultaneous appearance. 

Simon Magus It has been shewn that among the Apostolic Fathers 

a representor one . Clement of Rome, was invested by tradition with 

five character. * ■ • j 

representative attributes analogous in a certain degree to 
his real character, by which he was raised to heroic pro- 
portions. In like manner among the false teachers of the 



1 It would be interesting to in- 
quire how far the magical arts uni- 
versally attributed to JSimon and his 
followers admit of a physical expla- 



nation. In his school, if anywhere, 
we should look for an advanced 



knowledge of Nature. 



I.] Simon Magus. 241 

age Simon Magus a Samaritan of Gitti is invested by the chap. it. 
common consent of all early writers with mysterious im- 
portance as the great heresiarch, the open enemy of the ■ 
Apostles, inspired as it were by the Spirit of Evil to coun- 
termine the work of the Saviour, and to found a school of 
error in opposition to the Church of God. The story of 
his life has undoubtedly received many apocryphal embel- 
lishments ; but, as in the case of Clement, it cannot but be 
that his acts and teaching offered some salient points to 
which they could fitly be attached. Till the recent disco- 
very of the work 'against Heresies 1 / the history and doc- 
trine of Simon Magus were commonly disregarded as being 
inextricably involved in fable ; but there at length some 
surer ground is gained. While giving a general outline of 
his principles, Hippolytus has preserved several quotations 
from the Great Announcement 2 , which was published under Thewitnex* 
his name, and contained an account of the revelation with of the New 
which he professed to be entrusted. The work itself the Great : " 

t , . , , . , ill Announce- 

cannot nave been written by him, but it was probably ment. 
compiled from his oral teaching by one of his immediate 
followers 3 : at any rate the language of Hippolytus shews 
that in his time it was acknowledged as an authentic sum- 
mary of the Simonian doctrine 4 . In the fragments which 
remain there are coincidences with words recorded in the 



1 [Origenis] Philosophumena, sire has presented the arguments in sup- 
omnium hceresium refutalio, e Cod. port of Hippolytus' claims in the 
Par. eel. E. Miller, Oxon. mdcccli. most satisfactory form. 
The work cannot be Origen's ; and - 'Xirbtyacris, 'Airocpacns fxeyd\7j. 
scholars generally agree to assign it [Hipp.] adv. Heer. VI. 9 sqq. 'An- 
te Hippolytus Bishop of Portaa near nouncement' hardly conveys the 
Rome. I shall therefore quote it force of the original word, which iin- 
under his name ; for though I think plies ^an official or authoritative de- 
that the question of its authorship claration. 

is not yet settled beyond all doubt, 3 Bunsen suggests Menander (r. 

internal evidence proves that it must 54), apparently without any autho- 

have been written by a contempo- rit}\ 

rary of Hippolytus at Rome, if not 4 He quotes it constantly with the 

by Hippolytus himself. Dollinger words \eyei d£ 6 Si/tor, (prjai. 

C. R 



242 



The Early Heretics. 



[part 



The Simon- 
ians recog- 
nized the au- 
thority of the 
Apostles. 



chap. iv. Gospel of St Matthew 1 , and probably with a passage in the 
Gospel of St John 2 . Reference is also made to the first 
Epistle to the Corinthians, in terms which prove that it 
was placed by the author on the same footing as the books 
of the Old Testament 3 . 

Not only did the Simonians make use of the Canonical 
books, but they ascribed the forgeries current among them 
to ' Christ and his disciples, in order to deceive those who 
f loved Christ and his servants 4 .' They recognized not 
only some of the elements of the New Testament, but also 
the principle on which it was formed. The writings of 
the Apostles were acknowledged to have a peculiar weight : 
Christians sought in them the confirmation of the teaching 
which they heard, and the seeming authority of their 
sanction gained acceptance for that which was otherwise 
rejected. 
mexander. Menander, the scholar and fellow-countryman of Simon 

Magus, is said to have repeated and advanced his masters 
teaching. His doctrine of the Resurrection, in which he 
taught that those who 'were baptized into him died no 
'more but continued to live in immortal youth 5 / reminds 



1 [Hipp.] adv.Hcer. vi. 16 = Matt. 
iii. 10. The various readings are 
singular: 6771)5 yap irov, <pTjo~iv, 
7] d^ivrj wapa rets pi fas rod 5eV- 
dpov K.T.X. 

Simon's description of Helen 
([Hipp.] adv. Host. vi. 19) as 'the 
strayed sheep' (to irpofiarov to ire- 
irXavrjfxevov) is an evident allusion to 
the parable in Luke xv. The sub- 
stitution of Treir\avr)[X€vov for airoXw- 
Xbs is to be noticed. Cf. Matt, xviii. 
12, 13 (to Tr\avwp,evov...Toh ^77 7re- 
irXavr}p.£vois) ; Iren. c. Beer. I. 8. 4. 
Bunsen supposes that he combined 
the parable with the healing of the 
Syro-Phoenician's daughter. Cf. Uhl- 
horn, Die Homilien, u. s. vv. p. 296. 

2 id. vi. 9 : olKTjTTjpiov de Xeyec 



eivac Toy 



(jottou tovtov tov €% at- 



piaTcov yeyevr)p,hov (John i. 13) Kal 
KaTOLKelv ev avrcp tt\v airepavTov du- 
vafiiv rjv pifav elvai t&v oXcov (prjaiu. 

Bunsen (1. pp. 49, 55) considers 
the statement that Simon manifested 
himself to the Samaritans as the 
Father ([Hipp.] adv. Hair. vi. 19) to 
be a reference to John iv. 21 — 23. . 

3 adv. Hair. VI. 13: tovto €(ttl, 
<p7)cri, to elprjpievou "Ii>a pltj avv Tip 
KoapLu KaTaKpL6Cbp.ev (1 Cor. xi. 32). 

4 Constit. Almost. VI. 16. 1 : Ot'Sa- 
piev yap otl ol irepl ^ipaopa /cat K\e6- 
(3iov Icbdrj (TvvT&lavTes /3t/3Xta eV dvb- 
[xaTL XpiffTov Kal tCcv jjlcxOiitwv avrov 
irepicpipovGiv els airdrrju vpCcv t&v ire- 
cfrLKrjKOTcov Xpio-rbu /cat r)jias Tobs av- 
tov dovXovs. 

5 Iren. c. Hazr. I. 23. 5: Resur- 
rectionem enim per id quod est in 



I.] Menander : Cerinthus. 243 

us of the error of Ri/menceus and Philetus who said that chap. iv. 
the Resurrection was past already; otherwise I am not 2 mi,u * 1 
aware that anything which is know r n of his system points 
directly to the Scriptures. 

While Simon Magus represents the intellectual and cemxthus. 
rationalistic element of Gnosticism, Cerinthus represents it. 

' L His relation to 

under a ceremonial and partially Judaizing form. The Simon Magus. 

one was a Samaritan, the natural enemy of Judaism ; the 
other was 'trained in the teaching of the Egyptians 1 / 
among whom the interpretation of the Law had become a 
science. The traditional opponent of the one was St Peter ; 
of the other St John ; and this antagonism admirably ex- 
presses their relative position. St John however was not 
the only Apostle with w T hom Cerinthus came into conflict. 
Epiphanius 2 makes him one of those who headed the ex- 
treme Jewish party in their attacks on St Peter for eating 
with Gentiles, and on St Paul for polluting the temple. 
The statement in itself is plausible : an excessive devotion 
to the Law was a natural preparation for mere material 
views of Christianity. 

Cerinthus was evidently acquainted with the substance ms acquaint- 

" L a nee icith the 

of the Gospel history. He must have known the orthodox xewTesta- 
accounts of the parentage of our blessed Lord. He was 
familiar with the details of His Baptism, of His preaching, 
of His Miracles, of His death, and of His Resurrection 3 . 
'The Cerinthians/ Epiphanius says, 'make use of St Mat- 
'thew's Gospel 4 as the Ebionites do, on account of the 

eum baptisnia accipere ejus discipu- [i-hiroi §k eyyy 4p0ai, fiiWeiv Be avl- 
los, et ultra non posse mori, seel per- araadai brav i] kclOoXov yev-nraL le- 
severare non senescentes et inmior- Kp2v avaa-Tacris, is to be taken as de- 
tales, scribing Epiphaoius' deductions from 

1 [Hipp.] adv. liar, yii. 33. his teaching, and not as giving Ce- 

2 Epiph. Hcer. xxviii. 2 — 4. rinthus' dogmas. 

3 [Hipp.] adv. Bar. I c. Epiph. 4 Epiph. Hcer. xxviii. 5: XpQw- 
Lc. What Epiphanius says (Huer, rat yap tgj Kara Mar&uoj/ evayye- 
xxviii. 6) of Cerinthus' teaching Xty dirb fiiipovs ko.1 ouxl oXy 5ia rijv 
XpLarQi' ireirovdevai /cat earavpuadcu ») e^eaXcr, lav riqv evaapKOv. It is not 

K 2 



2M The Early Heretics. [paet 

chap, iv, 'human genealogy, though their copy is not entire.... 
'The Apostle Paul they entirely reject, on account of his 
* opposition to circumcision.' But the chief importance of 
Cerinthus is in relation to St John. It has been said that 
he was the author of the Apocalypse, and even of all the 
books attributed to the Apostle. And on the other hand 
it is the popular belief that the fourth Gospel was written 
to refute his errors. The coincidence is singular, and it is 
necessary to consider on what grounds these assertions have 
been made. 
How the Apo- The transition from Judaizing views to Chiliasm is very 
C tluattributtd simple, and Cerinthus appears to have entertained Chili- 
astic opinions of the most extreme form. In the account 
which Eusebius gives of him this fact is dwelt upon as if 
it were the characteristic of his system. In the earliest 
ages of the Church the language of Chiliasm at least was 
generally current ; but from the time of Origen it fell into 
discredit from the gross extravagances which it had occa- 
sioned. The reaction itself became extreme ; and imagery 
in itself essentially scriptural and pure was confounded 
with the glosses by which it had been interpreted. The 
Apocalypse, though supported by the clearest early testi- 
mony, was now viewed with distrust. ' Some said that it 
'was unintelligible and unconnected: that its title was 
' false, for that it was not the work of John : that that was 
'certainly not a revelation which was enwrapped in a gross 
' and thick veil of ignorance 1 / The arguments are purely 
subjective and internal. There is not a hint of any histo- 
rical evidence for the opinion. The doctrine of the book 

known in what the mutilation of the xP^/ jLev0L SyOw nap avroTs evayye- 
Gospel consisted. But that he did Xicp dirb rr]s apxns rod /caret, Mar- 
not remove the whole of the first dalov evayy ekiov dia rrjs yeveaXoyias 
two chapters, as the Ebionites did, pouXovrcu Trapio~Tav e/c aire pharos 'I- 
appears again from what Epipha- coarjcp kcl! Maplas eluat rev XpiarSv. 
mus says, Hcer. xxx. 14: 6 [xfr yap l Euseb. If. E. vn. 25 : Dionys. 
Krjpivdos /cat Kap-iroKpas r$ avrcd Alex. ap. Euseb. H. E. in. 28. 



I.] Cerinthus. 245 

was false, and consequently it could not be Apostolic. It chap, iv 
became then necessary to assign it to a new author. Cerin- 
thus it appears had written revelations, and assumed the 
Apostolic style 1 : it is possible that he had directly imitated 
St John : he was distinguished for Chiliasm ; and thus the 
conclusion was prepared, that he was the writer of the 
Apocalypse, and that he had ascribed it to St John from 
the desire ' to affix a name of credit to his forgery ;' to con- 
tinue the quotation, ( for this was the principle of his teach- 
' ing, that the kingdom of Christ would be earthly, and 
1 consist in those things which he himself desired, being a 
'man devoted to sensual enjoyments and wholly carual.' 
The Chiliasm of Cerinthus is here distinctly brought for- 
ward as the ground of what can only be considered as a 
conjecture; and Dionysius, who gives the history of the 
conjecture at length, was unwilling to accept it as true. 

That the ascription of the Apocalypse to Cerinthus was 
in fact a mere arbitrary hypothesis resting on doctrinal 
grounds is further shewn by the extension which was after- The other 

l • a i i r i -n • i n works of St 

wards given to it. A body of men whom Epiphanius calls John also 

& . . J r r attributed to 

the Alogi attributed not only the Apocalypse but also the cerinthus. 
Gospel and the writings of St John generally to Cerinthus 2 , 
and this purely on internal grounds. It was found difficult 
to reconcile the fourth Gospel with the Synoptists, and 
forthwith it was pronounced an Apocryphal book. Some 



1 Tbeodor. Fab. Hcerct. n. 3 (ap. 2 Epiph. Hcer. Li. 3. The history 
Routh, 11. 139). The famous frag- of the sect (if it can be so called) is 
meut of Caius is ambiguous : ap. Eu- very obscure, but we have only to 
seb. H. E. in. 28. I may express do with the fact, which is sufficiently 
my decided belief that Caius is not supported by Epiphanius' authority, 
speaking of the Apocalypse of St It is .very probable that under this 
John, but of books written by Ce- title Epiphanius simply wished to 
rinthus in imitation of it. The theo- include all those who rejected St 
logy of the Apocalypse is wholly in- John's writings. See Credner [Yolk- 
consistent with what we know of mar], Geschichte d. N. T. Kanon, p. 
Cerinthus' views on the Person of 185, anm. 
Christ. 



246 



The Early Heretics. 



[paet 



CHAP. IV. 



St John truly 
antagonistic 
to Cerin- 
thianism. 



The import- 
ance of the 
teaching of ' 
these first 
heretics gene- 
rally in rela- 
tion to the 
New Testa- 
ment. 



theory was necessary to account for its origin, and as one 
of the Apostle's writings had been already assigned to 
Cerinthus, this was placed in the same category, in spite 
of its doctrinal character. The Epistles could not be sepa- 
rated from the Gospels ; and so this early essay in criticism 
was completed. 

Nothing indeed can be more truly opposite to Cerin- 
thianism than the theology of St John. The character of 
his Gospel was evidently influenced by prevailing errors ; 
and though it is unnecessary to degrade it into a mere 
controversial work, it is impossible not to feel that it was 
written to satisfy some pressing want of the age, to meet 
some false philosophy which had already begun to fashion 
a peculiar dialect, and to attempt to solve by the help of 
Christian ideas some of the great problems of humanity. 
Cerinthus upheld a ceremonial system, and taught only a 
temporary union of God's Spirit with man. St John pro- 
claimed that Judaism had passed away, and set forth 
clearly the manifestation of the Eternal Word in His his- 
toric Incarnation no less than in His union with the true 
believer. The teaching of St John is doubtless far deeper 
and wider than was needed to meet the errors of Cerin- 
thus, but it has a natural connexion with the period in 
which he lived. 

This relation of the first heretics to the Apostles is of the 
utmost importance. Like the early Fathers, they witness 
to Catholic Truth rather than to the Catholic Scriptures : 
they exhibit the correlative errors as the Fathers embodied 
its constituent parts. The real personality of Simon Ma- 
gus and Cerinthus is raised beyond all reasonable doubt. 
The general character of their doctrine can be determined 
with certainty. And when we find the marks of ac- 
tivity of speculation, depth of thought, and variety of judg- 
ment in false teachers, can it appear wonderful that in the 



I.] Cerintlms. 247 

writings of the Apostles there are analogous differences? chap. iv. 
If the books of the New Testament stood alone, we might 
marvel at their fulness and diversity; but when it is 
found that their characteristic differences are not only 
stereotyped in Catholic doctrine but implied in contempo- 
rary heresies, they fall as it. were into a natural historic 
position. They are felt to belong to that Apostolic age in 
which every power of man seems to have been quickened 
with some spiritual energy. No long interval of time was 
then needed for the gradual evolution of the various forms 
of teaching which they preserve. Error sprung up with a 
titanic growth : truth came down full- formed from heaven 
to conquer it. 

But when it is said that the perfect principles of Then form a 
Gnosticism may be detected in these earliest heretics, I do heresies alluded 
not by any means ignore the vast developments which tures and later 
they afterwards received. In one respect the teaching of j 
the Simonians and Cerinthians furnishes an important 
link between Catholic doctrine and the later Gnosticism of 
Valentinus or Marcion. In these systems the phenomena 
of the world are explained by the assumption of a Dualism 
— more or less complete — of a fundamental opposition be- 
tween powers of good and evil. The creation was removed 
farther and farther from God, till at last it was ascribed to 
His enemy. The cosmogony of Simon Magus 1 and of Cer- 
inthus 2 occupies a mean position. In this the world is 
represented as the work of Angels, themselves the offspring 

1 There is some confusion in the count of Irenceus we read of a crea- 

account given by Hippolytus. In tion by Angels, of an arbitrary Moral 

the first part, where he refers to the Law, of the secondary inspiration of 

Great Announcement, the cosmogony the Prophets {adv. Hcer.xi. 19 ; Iren. 

of Simon appears to be expressed in c. Hcer. I. 23).. Uhlhorn, wrongly I 

a physical form. Fire is the f unda- think, takes the opposite view of the 

mental element of the universe. This relative dates of the two systems 

I believe to be the original form of (a. a. O. 293). 

his theory. Afterwards in a pas- 2 Epiph. H&r. XXVIII. 1, 2. 
sage nearly identical with the ac- 



248 



The Early Heretics. 



[pakt 



CHAP. IV. 



of God, who were also the authors of the Jewish Law and 
the inspirers of the Prophets. Against such a form of 
Gnosticism the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Introduc- 
tion to St John's Gospel speak with divine power ; but of 
the later developments there is not a trace in the New 
Testament. If however we suppose that any parts of it, 
the Pastoral Epistles for instance, or the Epistle of St 
Jude, had been written after the Apostolic age, is it possi- 
ble that no word should have betrayed a knowledge of the 
existence of such theories, when error was being combated 
with an intense feeling of its present danger ? The books 
which claim to be Apostolic are by their very character 
the produce of the Apostolic age. Exactly in proportion 
as we take into account the whole history of Christianity 
in its developments within and without the Church, we 
find more surely that it implies a complete New Testa- 
ment as its foundation ; that at no subsequent period was 
there an opportunity for the forgery of writings which are 
seen to be the sources and not the results of different sys- 
tems of speculation. 



The mixture 
of Christian- 
ity with earlier 
systems. 



The Ophites. 



§ 2. The Ophites and Ebionites. 

"While Simon Magus appeared in some measure as the 
author of an organised counterfeit of Christianity, claiming 
. to be himself an Incarnation of the Deity, and opposing 
magical powers to the Apostolic miracles, Christians else- 
where came into contact with existing speculative schools, 
and often survived the encounter only to become ranged 
with their former enemies. In this way sects arose which 
were not called by the name of any special founder but 
by some general title. Probably one of the earliest of 
these was the sect of the Naasseni, Ophites, or Serpent- 
worshippers. Hippolytus, professing to follow the order of 



l] The Ophites. 249 

time, places them in the first rank ; and it is evident chap. iv. 
that their system was not a mere corruption of Christi- 
anity, but rather a more ancient creed into which some 
Christian ideas were infused. Consistently w T ith this view 
Origen 1 speaks of Ophites who required all who entered 
their society to blaspheme Christ ; the bitterness of which 
law may be best explained if we suppose that it was first 
framed against some Christianizing members of their own 
body. 

The Christian Ophites whom Hippolytus describes ap- The Ophites 

r described bv 

pear to have been the first who # assumed the title oi mppoiytua. 

Gnostics 2 . They professed to derive their doctrines through 

Mariamne from James the Lord's brother 3 ; and thus the 

authorities which he quotes may be supposed to date from 

the age next succeeding that of the Apostles. Their whole 

system shews an intimate familiarity with the language of 

the New Testament Scriptures. The passages given from Their testi- 

. x _ -iroi mon y to the 

their books contain clear references to the Gospels oi bt New Testa- 

ment. 

Matthew, St Luke, and St John ; to the Epistles of St 
Paul to the Romans, the Corinthians (both Epistles), the 
Ephesians, and the Galatians ; and probably to the Epistle 
to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse 5 . They made use 

1 c. Cels.Yi. 28. St Luke xvii. 21, pp. 100, 108; 

2 adv.Hcer. v. 6: fiera $k ravra xvii. 4, p. 102 (?) ; xviii. 19 + Matt. 
irreKaXecrav eavrovs TvooarLKOvs, <pd- v. 45, p. 102; xi. 33, p. 103. 
o~kovt€s fJiovoi tol (3d67) yLv<jco~Keu>. Cf. St John iv. 10, pp. 100, 121; x. 
1 Cor. ii. 10; Apoc. ii. 24. 34 + Luke vi. 35, (Ps. lxxxii. 6) p. 

3 adv. Hcer. v. 7. 106 ; iii. 6, p. 106 ; i. 3, 4, as Lachm. 

4 The description of their opinions p. 107 ; ii. 1 — 12, p. 108 ; vi. 53 + xiii. 
is constantly prefaced by the words 33; id. + Matt. xx. 23, p. 109; v. 37, 
fpaalv or <j>r)<ri. p. 109; x. 9, p. in ; iv. 21, 23, p. 

5 The following list of references, 117; vi. 44, p. 112 ; ix. 1, i. 9, p. 121. 
which might be increased, will shew Romans i. 20 — 23, dbc. p. 99 (as 
to what extent the Ophites made use St Paul's) . 

of the New Testament Scriptures : 1 Cor. ii. 1 3, 1 4, p. 1 1 2 ; x. 1 1 , p. 1 1 3. 

St Matthew xiii. 33, 44, [Hipp.] 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4, p. 112. 

adv. Hcer. p. 108 ; xiii. 3 sqq., p. 113; Gal. iii. 28, d-c. p. 99. 

xxiii. 27, rd<poL eark KacovL&ixevoi (cf. Eph. iii. 15, pp. 97, 105 ; v. 14, 

supr. p. 127), p. 111 ; vii. 21, p.. 112 ; p. 104; iii. 5, p. 107 ; ii. 17, p. 11 1. 

xxi. 31, p. 112; iii. 10, p. 113; vii. 6, Heb. v. 11, p. 97. 

p. 114; vii. 14, 13, p. 116. Apoc. ii. 27, p. 104. 



250 



The Early Heretics. 



[pabt 



CHAP. IV. 



The Peratici 
and. Sethiani. 



The general 
testimony of 
the phi tic 
system to the 
writings oj 
St John. 



also of the Gospel according to the Egyptians and of the 
Gospel of St Thomas 1 . 

The Peratici and the Sethiani are placed by Hippoly- 
tus in close connexion with the Ophites. The passages of 
the esoteric doctrine (diropprjTa /jbvaTrjpca) of the Peratici 
which he brings to light contain obvious references to the 
Gospel of St John, the first Epistle to the Corinthians, and 
that to the Colossians 2 . The writings of the Sethiani 
again allude to the Gospels of St Matthew and St John 
and two of the Epistles of St Paul 3 . 

Apart from these special references the whole system 
of the Ophites bears clear witness to the authenticity of St 
John's Gospel. Everything tends to prove that in them 
we see one of the earliest forms of heresy. A similar 
combination of Gentile mysticism with Jewish and Chris- 
tian ideas troubled the Church of Colossae even in St 
Paul's time. Irenseus himself speaks of the Ophites as the 
first source of the Valentinian school, the original ' hydra- 
1 head from which its manifold progeny was derived ;' and 
yet even they far passed the limits which St John had 
fixed for Christian speculation, and thereby witness that 
they belonged to a later generation. 



1 Their use of the 'Gospel en- 
' titled according to the Egyptians ' 
(p. 98) and that ' entitled according 
'to Thomas' (p. 101) does not prove 
that they ascribed to those books Ca- 
nonical authority. Generally indeed 
the references to the Gospels are to 
our Lord's words, and I believe in 
every case anonymous. The passage 
quoted from the Gospel of St Tho- 
mas is not found in any of the pre- 
sent recensions of it. Cf. Tischen- 
dorf, Evv. Apocr. Pref. p. xxxix. 

2 St John iii. 1 7 (to dpyfievov, cf. 
Luke ix. 56), p. 125 ; iii. 14, p. 134; 
i. 1 — 4, p. 134 (wrongly divided by 
the editor?); viii. 44, p. 136; x. 7, 
p. 137. I Cor. xi. 32 (r? ypcKprj) p. 



125. Col. ii. 9 (to \eybfxevov) pp. 

124* 3*5« 

3 Matt. x. 34, p. 146. John iii. 
5, p. 141; iv. 14, p. 143; 2 Cor. v. 
2, p. 143; Phil. ii. 6, 7, pp. 143, 
318. 

The account of the Ophites is 
concluded by a summary of the opi- 
nions of Justin a Gnostic. The use 
of Isaiah lxiv. 4 iu his teaching (p. 
158) fully justifies the conjecture 
which I proposed above in p. 183, 
n. 1, and I think it very likely that 
Hegesippus had him in view when 
he wrote. In the quotations made 
from his writings there are apparent 
references to Luke xxiii. 46, p. 157 ; 
Johniv. 14, p. 158; xix. 26, ib. The 



l] The Ebionites. 251 

The Ophites, like Simon Magus, represent a system to chap. it. 
which Gentile mysticism gave its predominating character: 
on the opposite side was ranged the famous sect of the 
Ebionites, by whom Judaism was made an essential part 
of Christian life. Like Cerinthus they received a muti- whatbooi-s 

, ,., . of the Xew 

lated recension of St Matthew's Gospel 1 ; like him they Testament 

. . they received. 

wholly rejected the authority and writings of St Paul ; but 
nothing I believe is known of their judgment on the 
Catholic Epistles. They cannot however have received St 
John's Epistles ; and his Gospel, though not specially men- 
tioned, must be included among, those of which 'they 
t made no account.' 

This exclusive use of St Matthew did not always pre- The testi- 
vail. In the Clementines, which are a product of the Clementines. 
Ebionitic school, there are clear references to the four 
Evangelists. The allusions to St Matthew and St Luke 
in the Homilies 2 have been generally admitted ; and a 
recent discovery has removed the doubts which had been 
long raised about those to St Mark and St John. Though 



use of Anien as an angelic name by the Nazarenes, which 
(p. 151) may point, as Bunsen ob- contained the first two chap- 
serves, to Apoc. iii. 14. ters, and is described by 

1 Iren. c. Hcer. I. 26. 2 : Solo eo Jerome, 

quod est secundum Matthseum evan- (3) A mutilated and interpo- 

gelio utuntur et Apostolum Paulum lated text used by the Ebi- 

recusant, apostatam eum legis di- onites. 

centes. Eusebius calls this Gospel (j3) An [Apostolic] translation in 

that ' according to the Hebrews' Greek. 

(H. E. in. 27), and adds that the 2 I quote the Homilies only, be- 

Ebionites 'made little account of cause the Latin translation of the 

'the rest.' Recognitions may have been modi- 

This is not the proper place to fied by RufHnus. It may be no- 
enter on an accurate inquiry into ticed however that the passage in 
the perplexed question of the vari- Recogn. I. 68 which limits the argu- 
ous forms of St Matthew's Gospel. ment-from Scripture to 'the Law 
I believe them to have been the fol- ' and the Prophets' refers only to a 
lowing: discussion between Jews and Chris- 

(a) The original Aramcean text. tians, and does not contain any de- 

(1) A revision (?) of this in- termination of the Christian view on 
eluded in the Peshito. the subject, as some have supposed. 

(2) An interpolated text used 



252 The Early Heretics. [part 

chap. iv. St Mark has few peculiar phrases, one of these is re- 
peated verbally in the concluding part of the xixth 
Homily, published for the first time in 1853 1 ; an( l m 
the same place there occurs a quotation from St John 
which leaves no room for questioning the source from 
which it was taken 2 . 
™thi U anony- The evidence that has been collected from the docu- 
vlous evidence. men -j- s f these primitive sects is necessarily somewhat 
vague. It would be more satisfactory to know the exact 
position of their authors and the precise date of their being 
composed. It is just possible that Hippplytus made use 
of writings which were current in his own time without 
further examination, and transferred to the Apostolic age 
forms of thought and expression which had been the 
growth of two or even of three generations. However im- 
probable this notion may be, it lessens the direct argu- 
mentative value of the evidence, though it leaves the 
moral impression unimpaired. But it cannot be denied 
that each fresh discovery of ancient records confirms the 
authenticity of the books of the New Testament, so far as 
it bears upon them. The earliest known teachers of 
heresy quote them generally as familiarly known to Chris- 



1 dementis R. quce feruntur Ho- ovrbs tl rjiiaprev oft re oi yovets 
milice xx nunc primum integrce, ed. avrov, dXX' Iva di avrov <pave- 
A. It. M. DresseL, Gottingse, 1853. pwdrj i) dvvapus rod Qeov rr)s ay voi- 

Hom. Xix. 20: Atd /cat ro?s av- as liop.iv7j rd dp.aprr)p.ara. Of. John 

rod p.aBnra1s /car' idiav eiAi/6 ix. i, sqq. Uklhorn, 122 ff. 

ttjs r&v ovpavQv (BaaiXeias p.vari]pia. There can be no doubt that St 

Cf. Markiv. 34 : Kar Idiav rois Idiots Paul is referred to as 'the enemy' 

pLadrfroLS eireXvev irdvra. This is the in the Epistle of Peter to James pre- 

only place where eiriXvu occurs in fixed to the Homilies: rives rOv dwb 

the Gospels. Cf. Uhlhorn, Die Ho- edv&v rb dc ep.ov vbp.1p.0v a-KeboKlp.1- 

milien, u. s. w. p. 122. aav Krjpvypia, rod ex^pov avOpdnrov 

2 Horn. xix. 22: "QOev Kal [6 8i- &vop.6v riva /cat (pXvapdbbr} irpoawKa- 
8daK]a\os 7}p.Q>v irepl rod e/c yeverys p.evoi SiSaaKaXlav (c. 2). For the 
ir-qpov /cat dvapXtxpavros irap avrov rest I am not aware that there is a 
€&rd[£ov<Ti rots fiadrp-aLs] el ovros clear reference to any of the Epistles 
rjpLaprev rj ol yoveis avrov Iva of the New Testament in the Cle- 
rvcpXbs yevv7]6rj direKplvaro' ofre mentine writings. 



I.] Basilides. 253 

tians: they shew that they place them on the same level chap, iv 
as the Old Testament Scriptures by the forms of citation 
which they employ : they appeal to them as having autho- 
rity with those whom they address ; and since they used 
them in their private books, it is evident that they recog- 
nized their claims themselves \ 



§ 3. Basilides and Isidorus. 

The case however does not turn wholly on anonymous basilides. 
evidence. The account of Basilides given by Hippolytus of Ms testimony. 
is composed mainly of passages from his own writings 
which fully establish the inferences which have been 
hitherto drawn. In this instance also it fortunately hap- 
pens that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Epiphanius, 
witness to the accuracy of our authority, for they preserve 
specimens of the teaching of Basilides exactly according 
with the more important quotations made by Hippolytus. 
The mode in which the books of the New Testament are 
treated in these fragments shews that there is no ana- 
chronism in supposing that the earliest heretics sought to 
recommend their doctrines by forced explanations of Apo- 
stolic language. And yet more than this : they contain 

1 Eusebius in noticing the differ- onitic text of the Gospel of St Mat- 

ent translators of Scripture {H. E. thew, it still offers a singular proof 

VI. 17) mentions that Symmachus of the general reception of the Ca- 

(c. 200 a.d.) was an Ebionite. He nonical Gospel of St Matthew, though 

then adds: 'And moreover notes Symmachus assailed it. But Ruffi- 

* (vTro,u.i>r)L(.aTa) of Symmachus are nus, Jerome, and, following them at 
'still extant {cpeperaC) in which he a much later time, Nicephorns, sup- 

* appears to support the heresy which posed that Symmachus wrote Com- 
'I have mentioned, directing his mentaries on St Matthew, and the 
1 efforts to the Gospel of St Matthew.' Greek will bear that meaning. Hie- 
The last phrase (irpbs rb Kara Mar- ron. de Virr. III. 34: [Symmachus] 
6aiov airoTeiv6,Lievos evayytXiov) is ob- inEvangeliumquoque Kara ^Siardatov 
scure; bat if its meaning be that scripsit Commentarios, de quo et 
Symmachus exerted himself to shew suum dogma firmare conatur. 

the superior authority of the Ebi- 



254 The Early Heretics. [part 

chap, iv, the earliest, undoubted instances in which the Old and 
New Testaments are placed on the same level : the 
Epistles of St Paul are called ' Scripture/ and quotations 
from them are introduced by the well-known form l It is 
' written 1 / If it seem strange that the first direct proofs of 
a belief in the Inspiration of the New Testament are de- 
rived from such a source, it may be remembered that it is 
more likely that the apologist of a suspicious system 
should support his argument by quotations from an autho- 
rity acknowledged by his opponents, than that a Chris- 
tian teacher writing to fellow-believers should, insist on 
those testimonies with which he might suppose his readers 
to be familiar. 

Very little is known of the history of Basilides 2 . It 
seems that he was an Alexandrine, and probably of Jewish 
ins date. descent. He is said to have lived 'not long after the 
'times of the Apostles 3 / and to have been a younger con- 
temporary of Cerinthus, and a follower of Menander who 
was himself the successor of Simon Magus. Clement of 
Alexandria and Jerome fix the period of his activity in the 
time of Hadrian 4 ; and he found a formidable antagonist 
in Agrippa Castor 5 . All these circumstances combine to 
place him in the generation next after the Apostolic age, 
and to shew that in point of antiquity he holds a rank 



1 [Hipp.] adv. Hcer. VII. 26: 7) nothing which bears on the history 
ypa<p7] \4yei' oik ev St5a/cTcts av- of the Canon. [Hipp.] adv. H&r. 
0pw7rlv7)s <ro<pias \6yois dXX' h cHocx- VII. 28; Iren. c. Hcer. 1. 24; Epiph. 
ktols Trvev/jLCLTos (1 Cor. ii. 13). vii. 25 : Hcer. xxm. 

yey pairraL, (prjai' /ecu 97 kt'ktls avrr) ' d Archel. et Man. Disp., Eouth, 

GvaTtpdfri, k.t.X. Bom. viii. 22, <bc. Rell. Sacr. v. p. 19 7.... Basilides qui- 

2 Satarninus (or Satomilus) of An- dam non longe post nostrorum 

tioch is generally placed in close con- Apostolorum tempora....Cf. ib. 1. p. 

nexion with Basilides. He was a 258. Euseb. H. E. iv. 7. 

scholar of Menander, whose opinions 4 Cf. Pearson, Vind. Irjn. n. 7, ap. 

he advanced. All the accounts of Lavdner, viii. 350. 

his doctrine appear to be derived 5 Cf. supra, p. 82. 
from one source, and they contain 






I] 



Basilides. 



255 



intermediate between that of Clement of Rome and Po- chap, iw 

1 vpn vn & e made use 

ljuctip. of other books 

Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic ^^SSuSin- 
times it is not surprising that he made use of other sources ^ %„?£ 
of Christian doctrine besides the Canonical books. The tament - 
belief in divine Inspiration was still fresh and real ; and 
Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary prophets Bar- 
cabbas and Barcoph (Parchor) — c names to strike terror 
' into the superstitious ' — by whose writings he supported 
his peculiar views 1 . At the same time he appealed to the 
authority of Glaucias who as well as St Mark was ' an in- 
terpreter of St Peter 2 ;' and he also made use of certain 
' Traditions of Matthias' which claimed to be grounded on 
'private intercourse with the Saviour 3 .' It appears more- 
over that he himself published a Gospel 4 — a 'Life of 

1 Eusebius appears to consider 
the prophecies as forgeries (H. E. iv. 
7). They may however have been 
' Oriental books which he met with 
'in his journey into the East,' as 
Lardner suggests (vin. 390). Isido- 
rus wrote a commentary on the pro- 
phecy of Parchor, which gives au- 
thority to the conjecture: Clem. Alex. 
Strom, vi. 6. 53. 

2 Clem. Alex. Strom, vn. 17. 106. 

3 [Hipp ] adv. Hcer. vn. 20: Ba- 
ciXeidrjs rolvvv Kal 'IcrLdcopos 6 Baai- 
Xeidou reus yvrjcrios Kal /xadvrrjs <pa- 
clv elpT}Kevai ^lardlav avrols Xoyovs 
OL7roKpv(povs ovs rjKovcre irapa rod 2w- 
rrjpos kclt Ibiav bidaxOels. Miller 
corrects theManuscript reading Mar- 
Blav into ^lardaiov, wrongly I be- 
lieve. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom, vn. 
17. 108. 

4 The few notices of Basilides' 
Gospel or Commentaries are perplex- 
ing. Origen is the first who men- 
tions a Gospel as written by him. 
Horn. i. in Luc. : Ausus fuit et Ba- 
silides sciibere evaugeliura, et suo 
illud nomine titulare. This state- 
ment is repeated by Ambrose and 
Jerome, who cannot however be con- 



sidered as independent witnesses. 
In another passage Origen has been 
supposed to allude to the Gospel of 
Basilides as identical with that of 
Marcion and Yalentinus : ravra d£ 
eip7)Tcu irpbs rot's dirb Ova\ei>rivov Kal 
BacrcXidov Kal rovs airb jlapKiuvos. — 
£'Xoucrt yap Kal avrol rds Ae'ifas (the 
quotations from the Old Testament 
in Luke x. 27) ev t(£ Kad" 1 eavrovs ev- 
ayye\iu (Fr. 6. in Luc.) The last 
clause however need not refer to any 
besides the Marcionites. 

I am not aware that there are any 
more references to the work of Ba- 
silides as a Gospel; but Agrippa 
Castor mentions 'four and twenty 
' books (rio-aapa irpbs rots [?] eiKocn) 
' which he composed on the Gospel' 
(Euseb. H. E. IV. 7) ; Clement of 
Alexandria quotes several passages 
from the twenty-third book {Strom. 
iv. 12. 83 sqq.); and another quota- 
tion from the thirteenth book (trac- 
tatns) occurs at the end of the 'dis- 
'cussion between Archelaus and 
'Manes' (Bouth, v. p. 197). 

The character of these quotations 
shews that these Commentaries can- 
not have formed part of a Gospel in 



256 



The Early Heretics, 



[part 



chap. IV. 



■ Christ/ as it would perhaps be called in our days, or * the 
f Philosophy of Christianity ' — but he admitted the historic 
truth of all the facts contained in the Canonical Gospels 1 , 
and used them as Scripture 2 . For in spite of his peculiar 
opinions the testimony of Basilides to our ' acknowledged ' 
hatL^kshe' books is comprehensive and clear. In the few pages of his 
quotes. writings which remain there are certain references to the 

Gospels of St Matthew, St Luke, and St John, and to the 
Epistles of St Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, 
and Colossians, possibly also to the first Epistle to Timo- 
thy 3 . In addition to this he appears to have used the 
first Epistle of St Peter 4 ; and he must have admitted the 
Petrine type of doctrine through his connexion with. Glau- 
cias. And thus again, apart from the consideration of par- 
ticular books, an Alexandrine heretic recognized simul- 
taneously the teaching of St Paul, St Peter, and St John, 
while Polycarp was still at Smyrna, and Justin Martyr 



only a disciple of Plato. 



And the fact itself belongs to an 



the common sense of the word, but 
it appears that Basilides attached a 
technical meaning to the term : Eu- 
ayytXiov €o~rl /car' atirovs (the fol- 
lowers of Basilides) rj rCov vwepKOCTiii- 
wv yvuxris, d>s bedr}\corai, tjp 6 fJL^yas 
apx^v ovk rjiriararo. [Hipp.] adv. 
Hcer. vn. 27 ; cf. 26. May we not 
then identify the Commentaries with 
the Gospel in this sense, and suppose 
that the ambiguity of the word led 
Origen into error ? 

Norton (11. p. 310) assumes that 
the Homilies on Luke are not Ori- 
gen's. In this I suppose he follows 
the rash conjecture of Erasmus. 
Huet, Orig. 111. 3. 13. Redepenning, 
Origenes, 11. 69. 

1 [Hipp.] adv. liar. vil. 27: Te- 
yeprjfxevTjs 5£ ttjs yeviaeus rrjs irpo8e- 
d7}\(x)p,€i>7)s yeyove iravra bfxoidos /car* 

aVTofis TCL 7T€pl TOO 2o)T7)pOS WS €U 

roh evayyeXiois y£y pairrai. He gave 
a mystical explanation of the Incar- 



nation, quoting Luke i. 35 (id. §26). 

2 See next note. 

3 The following examples will be 
sufficient to shew his method of quo- 
tation: 

St Matthew ii. 1 sqq. p. 243. 

St Luke i. 35, p. 241 (to elprjfit- 
vov). 

St John i. 9, p. 232 (roXey. iu rots 
etfcryy.); ii. 4, p. 242. 

Romans viii. 22, p. 238 (els yiypa- 
tttcu), p. 241 ; v. 13, 14, (id.) Cf. 
Orig. Comm. in Rom. c. 5. 

1 Corinthians ii. 13, p. 240 (riypa- 
<p7)); xv. 8, p. 241. 

2 Corinthians xii. 4, p. 241 (7^- 
ypcnrrai). 

Ephesians i. 21, pp. 230, 239; iii. 
3, p. 241. 

Colossians i. 26, p. 238 (Eph. iii. 5). 
1 Tim. ii. 6, p. 232 (?) Kcupol idiot. 

4 Clem. Strom, iv. 12. 83 (1 Pet. 
iv. 14 — 16), quoted by Kirchhofer, 
p. 416. 



I:] Isidoriis: Carpocrates. 257 

earlier date ; for this belief cannot have originated with chap. it. 
him, and if we go back but one generation we are within 
the age of the. Apostles. 

On the other hand Basilides is said to have anticipated He is said tn 

x nave rejected 

Marcion in the rejection of the Pastoral Epistles and o{ some books 

° *■ from the 

that to the Hebrews ; but Clement intimates that these Canon. 
books were commonly condemned by those who ' fancied ' 
that their opinions were characterized in them as 'false- 
' named wisdom ;' and there is no reason to suppose that 
this judgment was the result of any historical inquiry 1 . 
Jerome speaks of it as a piece of arbitrary dogmatism 
based on 'their heretical authority/ and unsustained by 
any definite arguments. 

Isidorus the son of Basilides- maintained the doctrine isidop.us. 
of his father ; nor need we believe that he differed from 
him in his estimation of the Apostolic writings. Some 
fragments of his works have been preserved by Clement of 
Alexandria, but I have noticed nothing in them bearing 
on the books of the New Testament. 



§ 4. Carpocrates. 
The accounts of Carpocrates are very meagre, and all carpocrates 

A i respected the 

apparently come from one source. He was an Alexandrine, Apostles 

, . . generally. 

and a contemporary of Basilides 2 . Nothing is said di- 
rectly of his views of the Apostolic writings ; but it is 
mentioned incidentally that he held the Apostles them- 
selves — 'Peter and Paul and the rest' — as nowise inferior 



1 Hieron. Pref. in Ep. ad Tit. : vero cum hseretica auctoritate pro- 

Nonnullas [epistolas] integras repu- nuncient et dicant Ilia epistola 

diandas crediderunt : ad Timotheum Pauli est, hsec non est ; ea auctori- 

videlicet utrauique, ad Hebrseos, et tate repelli se pro veritate intelli- 

ad Titum. Et si quidem redderent gant, qua ipsi non erubescunt falsa 

causas cur eas Apostoli non puta- annulare. 

rent, tentaremus aliquid respondere 2 X)lem. Alex. Strom, in. i. 5. 

et forsan satisfacere lectori. Nunc Iren. c. Hcer. 1. 25. 

C. S 



258 



The Early Heretics. 



[part 



chap. 1Y. 



The Carpo- 
cratians re- 
ceived our 
Gospels, 



Matt. v. 25 ; 
Luke xiL 58. 



Their system 
combined the 
teaching of 
St Paul and 
St John. 



to Christ Himself 1 . This opinion followed naturally from 
his views of the Person of Christ ; but the close juxtaposi- 
tion of St Peter and St Paul is worthy of notice. 

From another passage in Irenseus it may be concluded 
that the Carpocratians received our Canonical Gospels, 
adapting them to their own doctrine by strange expo- 
sitions. Thus they applied the parable of the man and 
his adversary to the relation of man to the devil, whose 
office they held it to be ' to convey the souls of the dead 
' to the Prince of the world, who in turn gave them to an 
' attendant spirit to imprison in another body, till they had 
'been engaged in every act done in the world 2 / 

The key-word of the system of Carpocrates in itself 
bore witness to the teaching of St Paul and St John. 
' Men are saved/ he said, 'by faith and love 3 ;' but the 
corollary which he drew from this truth on the essential 
indifference of actions seems to shew that he did not 
combine the teaching of St James with that of the other 
Apostles 4 . 



The date of 
Valentinus. 



§ 5. Valentinus. 

Shortly after Basilides began to propagate his doctrines 
another system arose at Alexandria, which was the result 
of similar causes, and was moulded on a similar type. Its 



1 Iren. c. Hcer. I. 25. 2. [Hipp.] 
adv. Hcer. vii. 3 1 . Epiphanius (Beer. 
xxvil. 2) says Herpov Kal 'Avdptov 
Kal UavXov. I do not know how to 
explain the special mention of St An- 
drew. His connexion with St Peter 
affords scarcely sufficient reason. 

2 Iren. c. Hcer. I. 25. 4. 

3 Iren. c. Hcer. 1. 25. 5: 5td iri- 
o~t€gjs yap Kal dydirns ado^eadar rd 
de Xoiira adid(popa ovra Kara rr/v 
do^av tG)v avdp&irwv irrj fJLev dyaOd 
irr) 8k KaKa. vopLi^ecrdai, ovdevos <pvo~ct 

KaKOV VTT&pXOVTOS. 



4 The fragments of Epiphanes 
(Clem. Alex. Strom, in. 2. 6 sqq.) the 
son of Carpocrates contain no di- 
rect scriptural quotations; but the 
whole argument on justice reads like 
a comment on Matt. v. 45. The 
passage in § 7, fir] auviels to rod diro- 
gtoXov p-qrbv \£yovros' 8td vojulov rr\v 
dpLapriap Zyvwv (Rom. vii. 7), is a 
remark of Clement's, avvieis refer- 
ring to (pnalv in the former sentence. 
It is necessary to notice this, as the 
words have been quoted as used by 
Epiphanes. Cf. Epiph. Hcer. xxxn. 4. 



I.] Valentinus. 259 

author Valentinus was like Basilides probably an Egyp- chap. iv. 

tian, and his writings betray a familiarity with Jewish 

opinions 1 . After the example of the Christian teachers 

of his age he went to Rome, which he chose as the centre 

of his labours. Irenaeus relates that 'he came there 

c during the episcopate of Hyginus, was at his full vigour . 

'in the time of Pius, and continued there till the time of 

' Anicetus 2 / Thus he was at Rome when Poly carp came 

on his mission from the Eastern Church; and Marcion 

may have been among his hearers. His testimony. is as 

venerable in point of age as that of Justin; and he is 

removed by one generation only from the time of St 

John. 

Just as Basilides claimed through Glaucias the autho- % e reeeiv «* . 

o the same book* 

rity of St Peter, Valentinus professed to follow the teach- SSSJE* 
ing of Theodas a disciple of St Paul 3 . The circumstance 
is important ; for it shews that at the beginning of the 
second century, alike within and without the Church, the 
sanction of an Apostle was considered to be a sufficient 
proof of Christian doctrine. There is no reason to suppose 
that Valentinus differed from Catholic writers on the 
Canon of the New Testament. Tertullian says that in 
this he differed from Marcion, that he at least professed to 
accept ' the whole Instrument/ perverting the interpre- 
tation where Marcion mutilated the text 4 . The fragments 
of his writings which remain shew the same natural and 

1 Cf. Epiph. Rrer. xxxi. 2. Mas- tati?] Marcion enim exserte efc pa- 
suet, Diss. I. J. r. lam machsera non stylo usus est: 

2 Iren. c. Ecer. in. 4. 3 (ap. Euseb. quoniarn ad materiam suam caedem 
H.E.iy. 11). scripturarum confecit. Valentinus 

3 Clem. Alex. Strom, tit. 17. 106. autem pepercit: quoniarn non ad ma- 

4 Tertull. de Prcescr. Hczret. 38 : teriam scripturas, sed materiam ad 
Alius manu scripturas, alius sensus scripturas excogitavit : et tamen plus 
exposition e inter vertit. Neque enim abstulit et plus adjecit, auferens pro- 
si Valentinus integro Tnstrumento prietates singulorum quoque verbo- 
uti videtur, non callidiore ingeuio ruin et adjiciens dispositiones non . 
quam Marcion [manus intulit veri- comparentium rerum. 

S 2 



260 The Early Heretics. [part 

chap. iv. trustful use of Scripture as other Christian works of the 
same period ; and there is no diversity of character in this 
respect between the quotations given in Hippolytus and 
those found in Clement of Alexandria 1 . He cites the 
Epistle to the Ephesians as ' Scripture/ and refers clearly 
to the Gospels of St Matthew, St Luke, and St John, 
to the Epistles to the Romans and the first to the Co- 
rinthians, perhaps also to the Epistle to the Hebrews and 
the first Epistle of St John 2 . 

But he is said But though no charge is brought against Yalentinus of 

to have intro- ° ° © o 

duced verbal mutilating the Canon or the books of the New Testament, 

alterations, t ° 

he is said to have introduced verbal alterations, ' correct- 
' ing without hesitation ' as well as ( introducing new expla- 

* nations 3 / And his followers acted with greater boldness, 
if the words of Origen are to be taken strictly, in which 
he says that 'he knows none other who have altered 
' the form (/jLeraxapagavTas) of the Gospel besides the fol- 
' lowers of Marcion, of Valentinus, and, as he believes, of 
'Lucanus 4 / However this may be, the whole question 

1 Very little is known of the writ- 'is written in popular books (reus 
ings of Valentinus. Clement quotes ' drj/JLoaioLS /3t/3\ois) with that which 
Homilies and Letters; and in the 'is written in the Church' (ra yeyp. 
Dialogue against Marcion a long pas- iv rjj e/c/cX.). By 'popular books' 
sage is taken from his treatise 'On Clement understands 'either the 
the Origin of Evil/ The quotations 'Jewish or Gentile writings.' The 
in Hippolytus are anonymous. antithesis seems to involve the idea 

2 The references are : of an ecclesiastical Canon. 

St Matthew v. 8 ; Clem. Strom, n. 3 Tertull. de Praxcr. Hoeret. 30 : 

20. 1 14. xix. 17 ; cf. Clem. Strom. I.e. Item Valentinus aliter exponens, et 

St Luke i. 35 ; [Hipp.] adv. Hcer. sine dubio emendans, hoc onmino 

VI. 35 (to elpT/fievov). quicquid emendat ut mendosum re- 

St John x. 8; ib. VI. 35, tro anterius fuisse demonstrat. The 

• Romans i. 20 ; Clem. Strom, rv. 13. connexion of the passage requires the 
92. viii. 11; ib. vi. 35. reading anterius for alterlus. Cf. 

1 Corinth, ii. 14; ib. VI. 34. xv. 8 ; previous page, note 4. 

cf. ib. 31. 4 Orig. c. CeJs. 11. 27. I have 

Ephes.iii. 5 ; ib.Yl. 35. iii. 14 — 18; already given an explanation of the 

ib. 34 (7/ ypa<p7)). passage in which Origen has been 

Hebr. xii. 22 ; cf. ib. vi. 30. supposed to connect the Gospel of 

1 John iv. 8 ; cf. ib. vi. 29. Marcion with that of Valentinus : 

In an obscure passage (Clem.^rom. p. 255, note 4. 

vi. 6. 52) Valentinus contrasts 'what 



I.] Valentinus. 261 

belongs rather to the history of the text than to the history chap. iv. 
of the Canon; and the statement of Tertullian is fully 
satisfied by supposing that Valentinus employed a different 
recension from that of the Vetus Latina, But it is of con- 
sequence to remark that textual differences even in here- 
tical writings attracted the notice of the early Fathers ; . 
and is it then possible that they would have neglected to 
notice graver differences as to the authority or reception 
of books of the New Testament if they had really existed? 
Their very silence is a proof of the general agreement of 
Christians on the Canon ; a proof which gains irresistible 
strength when combined with the natural testimony of 
heretical writings, and the partial exceptions by which it 
is occasionally limited. 

The Yalentinians however are said to have added a and to have 

used another 

new Gospel to the other four : ' casting aside all fear, and Gospel 
' bringing forward their own compositions, they boast that 
c they have more ' Gospels than there really are. For they 
'have advanced to such a pitch of daring as to entitle 
' a book which was composed by them not long since the 
' Gospel of Truth, though it accords in no respect with the 
' Gospels of the Apostles ; so that the Gospel in fact can- 
c not exist among them without blasphemy. For if that 
'which they bring forward is the Gospel of Truth, and 
'still is unlike those which are delivered to us by the 
■ Apostles — they who please can learn how from the writ- 
' ings themselves — it is shewn at once that that which is 
'delivered to us by the Apostles is not the Gospel of 
'Truth 1 / What then was this Gospel? If it had been a 

1 Iren. c. Hczr. in. n. 9. In the [Tert. ] de Pressor. Hceret. c. 49. But 

last clause I have adopted the punc- I can see no reason for doubting the 

tuation proposed by Mr Xorton (11. correctness of Irenseus' statement. 

305). The common reading gives The book may have been brought 

the same sense. prominently under his notice with- 

I believe that no mention of this out having had any permanent au- ■ 

Gospel occurs elsewhere, except in thority among the Yalentinians. 



262 



The Early Heretics. 



[part 



CHAP. IY. 



A n explana- 
tion of this 
statement. 



Other Gnos- 
tic Gospels. 



history of our Blessed Lord, and yet wholly at variance 
with the Canonical Gospels, it is evident that the Valen- 
tinians could not have received these — nor indeed any 
one of them — as they undoubtedly did. And here then a 
new light is thrown upon the character of some of the 
early Apocryphal Gospels, which has been in part antic- 
ipated by what was said of the Gospel of Basilides 1 . The 
Gospels of Basilides and Valentinus contained their systems 
of Christian doctrine, their views of 'the Gospel' philoso- 
phically and not historically 2 . The writers of these new 
Gospels in no way necessarily interfered with the old. 
They sought, as far as we can learn, to embody their spirit 
and furnish a key to their meaning, rather than to super- 
sede their use. The Valentinians had move Gospels than 
the Catholic Church, since they accepted an authoritative 
doctrinal Gospel. 

The titles of some of the other Gnostic Gospels confirm 
what has been said. Two are mentioned by Epiphanius in 
the account of those whom he calls ' Gnostics/ as if that 
were their specific name, the Gospel of Eve and the Gospel 
of Perfection. Neither of these could be historic accounts 
of the Life of Christ, and the slight description of their 
character which he adds illustrates the wide use of the 
word 'Gospel.' The first was an elementary account of 
Gnosticism, 'based on foolish visions and testimonies, 
' called by the name of Eve, as though it had been revealed 
f to her by the serpent 3 .' The second was a 'seduc- 



* a Cf. p. 255, note 4. 

2 This common use of the word 
occurs in Rev. xiv. 6, which passage 
has given rise in our own days to 
the strangest and most wide-spread 
Apocryphal 'Gospel' — that of the 
Mormonites — which the world has 
yet seen. 

The ' Gospel of Marcion ' may seem 



an exception, but it will be remem- 
bered that he called it the Gospel of 
Christ — Christianity, in other words, 
as seen in the life of Christ. Our 
Canonical Gospels recognize the hu- 
man teacher by whom it is conveyed 
to us : evayy £\lov Xpiarov Kara Mar- 
dalov. 

3 Epiph. Ho2r. xxvi. 2 : els 6pojjlcl 



'■] 



Heracleon. 



203 



' tive composition, no Gospel, but a consummation of chap. iv. 



woe 



i > 



The analogy of the title of this Gospel of Perfection The Gospel 

bJ m 7 ^ 0f Truth * 

leaves little doubt as to the character of the Gospel of no proof that 

* % J the Volenti. 

Truth. Puritan theology can furnish numerous similar nians differed 

°* / from other 

titles. And the partial currency of such a book among- christians as 

J- «/ & to the extent 

the Valentinians offers not the slightest presumption of the canon, 
against their agreement with Catholic Christians on the 
exclusive claims of the four Gospels to be the records of 
Christ's life. These they took as the basis of their specu- 
lations ; and by the help of Commentaries endeavoured to 
extract from them the principles which they maintained. 
But this will form the subject of the next section. 



§ 6. Heracleon. 
The history of Heracleon the great Yalentinian com- The history 

J m . . °f Heracleon 

mentator is full of uncertainty. Nothing is known of his uncertain. 
country or parentage. Hippolytus classes him with Ptole- 
mseus as belonging to the Italian school of Valentinians 2 ; 
and we may conclude from this that he chose the West as 
the scene of his labours. Clement describes him as- the 
most esteemed of his sect 3 , and Origen says that f he was 



yap avrrjs [Euas] hrjdev us evpcvayjs 
to fvofia ttjs yvdkaeus e-~ diroKaXv- 
\peus rod XaXrjeravTOS avrfj 6(pews airo- 
pdv vTroridevTL . . .opfiQpraL be dirb /jloj- 
pQv /jLaprvpiQv Kal oirraaiCov... 

In the next section Epiphanius 
quotes a passage from it containing 
a clear enunciation of Pantheism 
which is of great interest. 

1 Epiph. /. c. : €irlir\ao'TOv aVa- 
yovaLv dy&yifJ.bv tl iroi-qp-a, oj ttoltj- 
rev/jLarL eiredevro fvofxa, evayyeXiou 
TeXeuvaeus tovto (pdaKovres' Kal dXrj- 
6cbs ovk evayyeXiov tovto dXXd irev- 
dovs reXeLuxTis. 

Mr Norton has insisted very justly 



on the fact that the Apocryphal Gos- 
pels were speculative or mystical 
treatises and not records of the Life 
of Christ : II. pp. 302 ff. 

2 [Hipp.] adv. Hcer. VI. 35 : koI 
yeyovev evrevdev 7/ dtdaaKaXta avrCov 
birjprjfjievn, Kal KaXeHrat 7) fxkv dvaTO- 
Xikt) tls dibao-KaXia kclt avTovs t) de 
'IraXLUTiKT). 01 fih dirb tt)s 'Ira- 
Xias, <xii> eaTiv 'IlpanXeuv Kal ITroXe- 
/latos (paaiv, k. t.X. Clement of Alex- 
andria made eirtTo/JLal e/c tQu Qeodb- 
tou Kal ttjs dvaToXtKTJs KaXov- 
ixtvns di5ao~KaXlas. 

\ Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 9. 73 : 6 
T7)s OvaXevTlpov axoXrjs doKi/jabraTOS. 



264 The Early Heretics. [part 

chap. iv. 'reported to have been a familiar friend of ValentinusV 
If Tve assume this statement to be true, his writings cannot 
well date later than the first half of the second century 2 ; 
and he claims the title of the first commentator on the 
New Testament. 
ms commen- There is no evidence to determine how far the Com- 

taries onthz . p , . 

Gospels. mentaries of Heracleon extended. Jbragments ot his 

Commentaries on the Gospels of St Luke and St John 

have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. 

And the very existence of these fragments shews clearly 

the precariousness of our information on early Christian 

literature. Origen quotes the Commentary on St John 

repeatedly, but gives no hint that Heracleon had written 

anything else. Clement refers to the Commentary on St 

Luke and is silent as to the Commentary on St John 3 . 

Hippolytus makes no mention of either. 

The allusions The fragments contain allusions to the Gospel of St 

contain tb the Matthew, to the Epistles of St Paul to the Romans and the 

yew Testa- first to the Corinthians, and to the second Epistle to 

Timothy 4 ; but the character of the Commentary itself is 

the most striking testimony to the estimation in which 

^inspiration the Apostolic writings were held. The sense of the Inspi- 

7mpiy! iey ration of the Evangelists — of some providential guidance 

1 Coram, in Joan. Tom. n. § 8. appears to me very uncertain: frioc 

2 Epiphanius indeed speaks of him be cos (pnciv 'Upaicktuv irvpl ra tora 
as later than Marcus (Hcer. xxxvi. rdv Gtppa'yi^op.huv Kareo-nix-qvavTo 
2). The exact chronology of the ovtus aKovcavres to awoo~To\iKbv. 
early heretics is very uncertain. In Cf. Iren. c. Hcer. I. 25. 6. No ' Apo- 
fact at least all those with whom we stolic injunction' occurs to me likely 
have to do at present must have been to have given rise to the custom, 
contemporaries. It is surprising that 4 The references are : 

Irenseus makes no mention of He- St Matthew viii. 12 ; Orig. in Joan. 

racleon, since he was closely asso- Tom. xin. § 59. 

ciated with Ptolemseus against whom Eomans xii. 1; Orig. «cZ. §25. i. 

particularly his work was directed. 25 ; id. § 19. 

3 Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 9. 73 sq. 1 Corinthians, Orig. id. § 59. 
The second passage which is com- 2 Timothy ii. 13; Clem. Alex. 
monly referred to his Commentary on Strom. TV. I. c. 

St Luke (ap. Clem. Alex. Frag. § 25) 



I] 



Ileracleon. 



265 



by which they were led to select each fact in their history chap. iv. . 
and each word in their narrative — is not more complete 
in Origen. The first Commentary on the New Testament 
exhibits the application of the same laws to its interpreta- 
tion as were employed in the Old Testament. The slight- 
est variation of language was held to be significant 1 . 
Numbers were supposed to conceal hidden truths. The 
whole record was found to be pregnant with spiritual 
meaning, conveyed by the teaching of events in them- 
selves real and instructive. It appears also that differ- 
ences between the Gospels were felt, and an attempt made 
to reconcile them 2 . And it must be noticed that authori- 
tative spiritual teaching was not limited to our Lord's 
own words, but the remarks of the Evangelist also were 
received as possessing an inherent weight 3 . 

The introduction of Commentaries implies the strong- The rise of 

t f • • • i l ■ n tvt CommentarUs 

est belief m the authenticity and authority of the Is ew among hem- 

. . . tics - 

Testament Scriptures ; and this belief becomes more im- 
portant when we notice the source from which, they were 
derived. They took their rise among heretics, and not 
among Catholic Christians. Just as the earliest Fathers 
applied themselves to the Old Testament to bring out its 
real harmony with the Gospel, so heretics endeavoured to 
reconcile the Gospel with their own systems. Commen- 



1 I cannot help quoting one criti- 
cism which seems to me far truer in 
principle than much which is com- 
monly written on the prepositions of 
the New Testament. Writing on 
Luke xii. 8 he remarks : ' With good 

• reason Christ says of those who con- 
fess Him in me (o/uloX. ev epioi), but 

• of those who deny Him me (dpv. /me) 
'only. For these even if they con- 
1 f ess Him with their voice deny Him. 
1 since they confess Him not in their 
' action. But they alone make con- 

• fession in Him who live in the con- 
1 fession and action that accords with 



* Him ; in whom also He makes con- 
cession, having Himself embraced 
'them, and being held fast by them' 
(Clem. Alex. Strom, rv. I. c). 

2 Orig. in Joan. x. § 2 1 : 6 jxevroL 
ye 'H/xz/cXeW to ev r p i a I (pnacv 
dvri 'rod iw rplrifj... (John ii. 19). 

3 The fragments of Heracleon are 
published (after Massuet) at the end of 
Stieren's edition of Irenaeus ; but much 
still is wanting to make the collection 
complete. His Commentary on the 
fourth chapter of St John will illus- 
trate most of the statements in the 
text. Orig. in Joan. Tom. xni.§ 10 sqq. 



266 



The Early Heretics. 



[part 



crap. iv. taries were made where the want for them was pressing. 
But unless the Gospels had been generally accepted the 
need for such works would not have been felt. Heracleon 
was forced to turn and modify much that he found in St 
John, which he would not have done if the book had not 
been received beyond all doubt 1 . And his evidence is the 
more valuable, because it appears that he had studied the 
history of the Apostles, and spoke of their lives with 
certainty 2 . 

icracieon I n addition to the books of the New Testament He- 

[toted also the 

r ter hing ° f rac l eon quoted the Preaching of Peter. In this he did no 
more than Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nazian- 
zum ; and Origen when he mentions the quotation does 
not venture to pronounce absolutely on the character of 
the book 3 . It is quite possible that it contained many 
genuine fragments of the Apostle's teaching ; and the fact 
that it was used for illustration 4 affords no proof that 
it was placed on the same footing as the Canonical 
Scriptures. 



The position 
of Ptolemseus. 



§ 7. Ptolemceus. 

Ptolemseus. like Heracleon, was a disciple of Valenti- 
nus, and is classed with him in the Italian as distinguished 



from the Eastern School 5 . 



Irenoeus in his great work 



1 Thus to John i. 3 ovSk ev he 
added rQv kv ru Koaficp koX rfj kt'i- 
aei (Orig. in Joan. 11. § 8). He ar- 
gued that John i. 18 contained the 
words of the Baptist, and not of the 
Evangelist (Orig. in Joan. Tom. VI. 
§ 2) ; and in like manner he supposed 
that the words of Ps. lxix. 9 as used 
in John ii. 17 were applied not to our 
Lord but to ■ the powers which He 
* had ejected' (Orig. in Joan. x. 19). 
These forced interpretations were 
made from doctrinal motives, and 
in themselves sufficiently prove that 
St John's Gospel was no Gnostic 
work. 



2 Clem. Alex. Strom. TV. I. c. : ov 
yap irdpres ol aw^ofievot (b/JLoXSyrjo-av 
rrjv 5ia ttjs (pcovijs 6fjLo\oyiav /cat e£- 
rfkdov' e£ &v Mardalos, $?L\nnros, 
QujjlcLs, Aev'ts (i. e. Thaddeus), Kai 
aXXoi TFoXXot. 

3 Comm. in Joan. Tom. xiii. §17. 
Cf. App. B. 

4 The quotation which Heracleon 
made was in illustration of our Lord's 
teaching on the true worship, John 
iv. 22. The passage in question is 
given by Clement, Strom, vi. 5.40, 41. 

5 [Hipp.] adv. Hair. vi. 35. Ter- 
tullian {adv. Val. 4) places Ptole- 
maeus before Heracleon. 



I.] Ptolemceus. 267 

specially proposed to refute the errors of his followers ; chap. it. 
and it appears that he reduced the Valentinian system to 
order and consistency, and presented it under its most 
attractive aspect. 

EpijDhanius has preserved an important letter which ^ Letter to 
Ptolemceus addressed to an 'honourable sister Flora/ in 
which he maintains the composite and imperfect character 
of the Law. In proof of this doctrine he quoted words of 
our Lord recorded by St Matthew, the prologue to St 
John's Gospel, and passages from St Paul's Epistles to the 
Romans, the first to the Corinthians, and that to the 
Ephesians 1 . He appealed, it is true, to an esoteric rule of 
interpretation, but there is nothing to shew that he added 
to or subtracted from the Christian Scriptures. 'You will 
' learn,' he says, ' by the gift of God in due course the 
1 origin and generation [of evil], when you are deemed 
'worthy of the Apostolic tradition, which we also have 
' received by due succession, while at the same time you 
' measure all our statements by the teaching of the Sa- 
' viour . 

Many other fragments of the teaching if not of the Fragments of 
books of Ptolemseus have been preserved by Irenaeus 3 ; preserved by 
and though they are full of forced explanations of Scrip- 
ture, they recognize even in their wildest theories the im- 
portance of every detail of narrative or doctrine. He 
found support for his doctrine in the Parables, the Mi- 
racles, and the facts of our Lord's life, as well as in the 
teaching of the Apostles. In the course of the exposition 

1 Epiph. Jlcer. xxxiii. 3 sqq. 3 Tren. c. Eccr. 1. t sqq. ^ After 

2 Epiph. Heir, xxxiii. 7: /xaOrjati the exposition of the Yalentinian sys- 
ydp 0eov didovros etjrjs /ecu ttjv rov- tern is completed (I. 8. 5), the Latin 
rov dpxw T€ K &<> yewno-Lv, d^Lovfjievn Version adds : ct Ptolemceus quidem 
rrjs a7ro<TTo\iK7]s Trapadoaeus i,v 4k ita. There is however nothing to 
dLadoxys Kal ii.ue'is irapetXrjcpaaei', fie- correspond to these words in the 
t& Kal rod kclvovLgcll irdvras rovs Greek\ 

X670US rfj rod acorijpos ()t5a<x/ca\ici. 



268 The Early Heretics. [part 

chap. iv. of his system quotations occur from the four Gospels, and 
from the Epistles of St Paul to the Romans, the first to the 
Corinthians, to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians 3 . 
Two statements however which he makes are at variance 
with the Gospels : that our Lord's ministry was completed 
in a year ; and that He continued for eighteen months 
with His disciples after his Resurrection. The first, which 
has found advocates in modern times 2 , is remarkable 
because it is chiefly opposed to St John's Gospel, on 
which the Valentinians rested with most assurance : the 
second was held by Ptolemceus in common with the 
Ophites 3 . 

§ 8. The Marcosians. 

rheMarco- One sect of the Valentinians was distinguished by 

use of Apocry- the use of Apocryphal writings. 'The Marcosians/ Ire- 
' naeus writes, ' introduce with subtlety an unspeakable mul- 
titude of Apocryphal and spurious writings (ypcupai), 
( which they themselves forged, to confound the foolish, 
'and those who. know not the Scriptures (ypd/ifjiaTa) of 
'truth 4 .' In the absence of further evidence it is impos- 
sible to pronounce exactly on the character of these books : 
it is sufficient to know that they did not supplant the 

1 The following references maybe Galatians vi. 14 (1. 3. 5). 

noticed: Ephesians i. 10 (1. 3. 4); iii. 21 

Matthew v. 18 (Iren. I. 3. 2) ; ix. (1. 3. 1) ; v. 13 (1. 8. 5); v. 32 (1. 8. 4). 

?o (1. 3. 3) ; x. 34 (1. 3.5); xiii. 33 Colossians i. 16 (1. 4. 5) ; ii. 9 and 

(1. 8. 3); xx. 1 (1. 3. i); xxvii. 46 iii. 11 (1. 3. 4). 

and xxvi. 38 (1. 8. 2). 2 In particular this opinion lias 

Mark v. 31 (1.3.3); x. 21(1. 3. 5). been supported with very forcible 

• Luke ii. 42 (1. 3. 2); iii. 17 (1. 3. arguments by Canon Browne, Ordo 

5) ; vi. 13 (1. 3. 2); viii. 41 (1. 8. 2); Sceclorum, pp. 80 If. 

ix. 57 sqq. and xix. 5 (1. 8. 3). 3 Iren. c. Hcer. 1. 3. 2, 3 ; cf. I. 30. 

John xii. 27 (var. lect. 1. 8. 2) ; 14. 

i. 1 sqq. (1. 8. 5). 4 Iren. c. Hcer. I. 20. 1. Among 

Romans xi. 16 (1. 8. 3) ; xi. 36 these was a Gospel of the Infancy, 

(i. 3.4). containing a similar story to that in 

1 Corinthians i. 18 (1. 3. 5) ; xi. 10 the Gospel of Thomas, c. 6. 
and xv. 8 (1. 8. 2) ; xv. 48 (1. 8. 3). 



I.] The Marcosians. 269 

Canonical Scriptures. At the same time their appearance chap. it. 
in this connexion is not without importance. Marcus the 
founder of the sect was probably a native of Syria 1 ; and it 
is well known that Syria was fertile in those religious tales 
which are raised to too great importance by being named 
Gospels. 

But whatever these Apocryphal writings may have 
been, the words of Irenaeus shew that they were easily dis- 
tinguishable from Holy Scripture ; and the ^Marcosians 
themselves bear witness to the familiar use of our Gospels. 
The formularies which Marcus instituted contain references But they ad- 
to the Gospel of St Matthew, and perhaps to the Epistle canonical 
to the Ephesians 2 . The teaching of his followers offers co- ° spe *' 
incidences with all four Gospels. These Gospel-quotations 
present remarkable various readings, but there is no reason 
to suppose that they were borrowed from any other source 
than the Canonical books. Iremeus evidently considered 
that they were taken thence ; and while he accuses the 
Marcosians of 'adapting' certain passages of the Gospels 
to their views, the connexion shews that they tampered 
with the interpretation and not with the text 3 . 

1 This rnay be deduced from his Matt. xi. 25 sqq.: e if 0^0X07770-0- 
use of Aramaic liturgical forms. /jlcll (-odfiai. So Int. Lat.) aoi II d- 
Iren. c. Hair. 1. 21. 3. rep Kvpie tQv ovpavuv (rod ovpa- 

2 Iren. c. Hair. 1. 13. 3 (Matt. vov) /cat rrjs 7 '/7s. on direKpvfias 
xviii. 10); I. 13. 1 (Eph. iii. 16, (e Kpv\p as r aura. So Int. Lat.) dwb 

TTkTlp&GCLl (TOV TOV £<jU3 avdpUTTOv). (TCKpLbv KO.I 0~VV€TU)P K dl d IT € K d- 

3 The various readings are of con- \v\pas avrd ptjttlols. Oi-a, (val) 6 
siderable interest when taken in con- Harrjp fxov (om.), on ^fxirpoaBep <rov 
nexion with those of the Gospel- evdoKta /ulol iyevero (ovtus ey. ev. 
quotations of Justin. They are ex- ZfiTrp. crov. Iia Pater metes, quoniam 
actly of such a character as might in conspectu tuo placitum factum est. 
arise from careless copying or quo- Int. Lat.). Udura /jlol irapedodrj 
tation. In some respects also they virbrov liarpos fxov /cat ovdels 
are supported by other authority. eyvw top Harepa et fxi) 6 Tibs, /cat 
I have given the passages at length rbv Tlbv et /it] 6 Jlarijp /cat $ dv 6 
(with the variations from the Go- Tibs dTroKaXuxf/y. For the last clause 
spels) that they may be compared see p v 116, note 3. 

with Justin (Iren. c. Hair. 1. 20. Matt. xi. 28; 29: d€vr€...v l ads' 

1 sqqV /cat fxadere dw ijuLov top rrjs d\r]~ 



270 



The Early Heretics. 



[part 



chap. iv. Besides quoting the Gospels the Marcosians referred 

in d o/stPaui g enera % to St Paul in support of their peculiar opinions. 
' They said that Paul in express terms had frequently indi- 
cated the redemption in Christ Jesus; and that this was 
' that doctrine which was variously and incongruously de- 
livered by them 1 .' 
How far they The coincidences with the other parts of the New Tes- 

recognized # *■ 

other parts of tament are less certain. An allusion to the Deluge bears 

the New Tes- ... . . 

tament. a marked similarity to the passage in the first Epistle of 

St Peter 2 ; and among the titles of our Lord occurs Alpha 
and Omega, which they would appear to have borrowed 
from the Apocalypse 3 . Apart from this special coincidence, 



deias Jlaripa KaT7]yye\Kevai. 6 yap 
ovk rjdeicav, <pr)crl, tovto avrols vire- 
crxero ()i5d£eu\ The last words shew- 
that tov — KaT'/)yye\K&ai formed no 
part of the quotation, which agrees 
verbally with St Matthew, omitting 
one clause. 

Mark x. 18; Matt. xix. 16: ri 
fie \eyeis ayadbv (Mk.); ets iarlv 
dyad 6s (Mt.), 6 ILar^p ev rots ov- 
pavoTs. Cf. p. 133, n. 4. The pas- 
sage is referred to by Ptolemajus 
thus (Epiph. Hcer. xxxiii. 7): eva 
yap p,6vov that dyadbv Qebv rbv eav- 
tov irarepa 6 acorrjp r\p,&v a7re<prjvaTO. 
See Cod. D, Mark x. 18. 

Matt. xxi. 23: ev iroia Swdpei. 
(e^ovata) tovto (ravra) iroteXs; 

Mark x. 38: ovvaade to (3d- 
irTio-pa fiaTTTLo'drjvai 6 eyw yuAXw 
fiairTi£eo-dai (^awTi^opai) ; MeXXw 
jSa7TT. answers to Matt. xx. 22, 
p.iWw irivetv. Cf. p. 124. 

Luke ii. 49: ovk otdare (so D, 
al., Tert.: rjbetTe) otl iv toIs tov 
brarpos /tou Set p.e eTvai; 

Luke xii. 50: koI dXKo (om. both 
words) fidwTia p,a (+ be) e'^w /3a- 
7tt Ladrjvai, Kal irdvv eirelyopLaL els 
avrb (ir&s avvix°f JLaL ^ 0JS orov reXe- 
o-6rj). This change is a good instance 
of an interpretative gloss. 

Luke xix. 42: el ^yvus Kal av 
arjpLepov (ev Ty 7]p,epa Tavrrj) rd wpbs 



elpr)V7)V €Kpij(37) be (vvv be €Kp. 
dirb 6(pda\pu>v) (to v. 

John. xx. 24. Cf. Iren. I. 18. 3. 

One passage causes me some per- 
plexity. It stands thus in Iren. 1. 
20. 2: ev Tip elpTjKevai IloXXd/as eire- 
66/j.rjaa aKovcac Zva tQv \6ywv Toti- 
tu)v Kal ovk '4ax ov rov epovvra, ep.- 
<paivovTos <paffLv elvai did tov evbs 
tov dXrjdiOS eva debv bv ovk iyvuKet- 
crav. The Latin Version offers no 
various reading. Stieren supposes 
that the words are taken from an 
Apocryphal Gospel ; but that is con- 
trary to what Irenseus says. May 
we not change eiredvpirjaa into eVe- 
6vp7)(jav, and refer to Matt. xiii. 
17? This emendation gives eyvdo- 
Keiaav a natural antecedent, and 
improves, unless I am mistaken, the 
connexion of the passage. 

1 Iren. c. Hcer. I. 21. 3. The 
phrase occurs in the Epistles of St 
Paul to the Komans (iii. 24), Ephe- 
sians (i. 7), and Colossians (i. 14). 
The words of the Marcosians may 
consequently be taken as a testi- 
mony to these Epistles. 

2 Iren. c. Hcer. I. 18. 3; 1 Peter 
iii. 20. The recurrence of the same 
word bieaudrjaav makes the similar- 
ity more worthy of notice. 

3 Iren. c. Beer. 1. 14. 6; 15. 1. 
The allusion would be certain beyond 



i.] The Marcosians. 271 

the whole reasoning of the Marcosians shews a clear resem- chap. iv. 
blance to the characteristic symbolism of the Apocalypse, 
which is distinguished by the sanction that it gives to a 
belief in the deep meaning of letters and numbers. And 
this belief, though carried to an extravagant extent, lies at 
the bottom of the Marcosian speculations. The principle 
of interpretation is one which I cannot attempt to discuss, 
but it is again a matter of interest to trace the general 
agreement between the contents of the Canon and the 
bases on which heretical sects professed to build their 
systems. If we suppose that the 'acknowledged' books of 
the New Testament were in universal circulation and 
esteem, we find in them an adequate explanation of the 
manifold developments of heresy. * In whatever direction 
the development extended, it can be traced to some start- 
ing point in the Apostolic writings 1 . 

doubt if dta tovto (prjcrlv clvtov a /cat to that which has been obtained 

to could be translated, as Stieren from the Valentinians of the West, 

translates it,... ipse se dicit A et £1. But as I am not now able to enter 

It is evident from the next sentence on the discussion of the authorship 

that <p7)crii> implies a quotation. Must and date of the fragments, it will 

we not read avros, 4 on this account be enough to give a general suin- 

(he says) he is... I' (Mr Hort has mary of the books of the New Tes- 

pointed out to me that the full taraent to which they contain allu- 

phrase occurs in [Hipp.] adv. Hcer. sions. They are these: the four 

VI. 49: Kat 5ta tovto bk (paalv ai'- Gospels; the Epistles of St Paul to 

top \£yeii> 'E^/cb to d\(pa /cat to 01, the Homans, 1 Corinthians, Ephe- 

k.t.X.) sians, Galatians, Philippians, Colos- 

1 At the end of the works of sians, 1 Timothy; the First Epistle 

Clement of Alexandria is usually of St Peter. 

published a series of fragments en- Epiphanius in his article on Theo- 

titled Short Notes from the writings dotus of Byzantium, who is com- 

of Theodotus and the so-called East- monly identified with the Clemen- 

ern School at the time of Valentinus tine Theodotus, represents him (Hcvr. 

(e/c tCov QeodoTov teal ttjs avaToXiKrjs Liv.) as using the Gospels of St 

OLdao-KaXtas /caret tovs OvaXevrlvov Matthew, St Luke, and St John ; 

Xpovovs €7tito,llo.L). The meaning of the Acts of the Apostles ; the First 

the phrase Eastern School has been Epistle to Timothy, 

explained already (cf. pp. 263, 266) ; The passages are given at length 

and the testimony of these fragments by Kirchhoier, § 403 ff. 
may be considered as supplementary 



272 



The Early Heretics. 



[part 



€HAP. IV. 



Tfie first 
knovrn Canon 
that of 
Marcion. 



The peculiar 
'position of 
Marcion. 



§ 9. Marcion. 

Hitherto the testimony of heretical writers to the New 
Testament has been confined to the recognition of detached 
parts by casual quotations or characteristic types of doc- 
trine. Marcion on the contrary fixed a definite collection 
of Apostolic books as the foundation of his system. The 
Canon thus published is the first of which there is any 
record ; and like the first Commentary and the first express 
recognition of the equality of the Old and New Testament 
Scriptures, it comes from without the Catholic Church, and 
not from within it 1 . 

The position which Marcion occupies in the history of 
Christianity is in every way most striking. Himself the 
son of a Bishop of Sinope, it is said that he aspired to gain 
the 'first place' in the Church of Rome 2 . And though his 
father and the Roman presbyters refused him communion, 
he gained so many followers that in the time of Epiphanius 
they were spread throughout the world. While other 
heretics proposed to extend or complete the Gospel, he 
claimed only to reproduce in its original simplicity the 
Gospel of St Paul 3 . But his personal influence was great 
and lasting. He impressed his own character on his teach- 
ing, where others only lent their names to abstract systems 
of doctrine. If Poly carp called him 'the first-born of 
Satan,' we may believe that the title signalized his special 



1 It is a very significant fact that 
the first quotation of a book of the 
New Testament as Scripture, the 
first Commentary on an Apostolic 
writing, and the first known Canon 
of the New Testament, come from 
heretical authors. It is impossible 
to suppose that in these respects 
they suggested the Catholic view of 
the whole Bible instead of follow- 
ing it. 



2 Epiph. Hcer. XLin. 1. What 
the irpoedpia was is uncertain. Pro- 
bably it implies only admission into 
the college of Trpeafivrepoi. Cf. Bing- 
ham, Orig. Eccles. 1. p. 266. Mas- 
suet, de Gnostic. Reb. § 135. 

3 Tert. adv. Marc. I. 20 : Aiunt 
Marcionem non tarn innovasse re- 
gulam separatione Legis et Evan- 
gelii quam retro adulteratam recu- 
rasse. 



I.] Marcion. 273 

energy; and the fact that he sought the recognition of a chap. iv. 
Catholic bishop shews the position which he claimed to fill. 

The time of Marcion's arrival at Rome 1 cannot be fixed ma date. 
with certainty. Justin Martyr speaks of him as 'still 
'teaching' when he wrote his first Apology, and from the 
wide spread of his doctrine then it is evident that some • 
interval had elapsed since he had separated from the 
Church 2 . Consistently with this Epiphanius places that 139-142 a.d. 
event shortly after the death of Hyginus ; and Tertullian 
states it as an acknowledged fact that Marcion taught in 
the reign of Antoninus Pius, but with a note to the effect 
that he had taken no pains to inquire in what year he 
began to spread his heresy 3 . This approximate date how- 
ever is sufficient to give an accurate notion of the historical 
place which he occupied. As the contemporary of Justin 
he united the age of Ignatius with that of Irenseus. He 
witnessed the consolidation of the Catholic Church ; and 
his heresy was the final struggle of one element of Christi- 
anity against the whole truth. It was in fact the formal 
counterpart of Ebionism, naturally later in time than that, 
but no less naturally the result of a partial view of Apo- 
stolic teaching 4 . 

Marcion professed to have introduced no innovation of Th* contents 

, i • 1 i l i (if his CUiion. 

doctrine, but merely to have restored that which had been 
corrupted. St Paul only, according to him, was the true 
Apostle; and Pauline writings alone were admitted into 

1 Petavius has discussed his date. tamen constat, Antonianus haereti- 
Animadv. in Epiph. Hcer. xlvi. (p. cus est, sub Pio irnpius. 

83) ; and Massuet much more fully 4 Marcion is commonly described 

and exactly, de Gnostic, reb. § 136. as the scholar and successor of Cer- 

Cf. Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb. 1835, p. do. But it is impossible to dcter- 

2/of. mine how far Cerdo's views on the 

2 Just. Mart. Ap. I. 26. Canon were identical with those of 

3 Tert. adv. Marc. I. 19: Quoto Marcion. The spurious additions 
quidem anno Antonini Majoris de to Tertullian's tract de Prcescr. Hce- 
Ponto suo exhalaverit aura canicu- ret. (c. Li.) are of no independent 
laris non curavi investigare \ de quo authority. 

C. T 



274 



The Early Heretics. 



[part 



The text of 
the E 'pieties 



chap. iv. his Canon. This was divided into two parts, 'The Gospel' 
and 'The Apostolicon 1 .' The Gospel was a recension of 
St Luke with numerous omissions and variations from the 
received text 2 . The Apostolicon contained ten Epistles of 
St Paul, excluding the Pastoral Epistles and that to the 
Hebrews 3 . 

Tertullian and Epiphanius agree in affirming that Mar- 
cion altered the text of the books which he received to 
suit his own views ; and they quote many various readings 
in support of the assertion. Those which they cite from 
the Epistles are certainly insufficient to prove the point ; 
and on the contrary they go far to shew that Marcion pre- 
served without alteration the text which he found in his 
Manuscript. Of the seven readings noticed by Epiphanius, 
only two are unsupported by other authority; and it is 
altogether unlikely that Marcion changed other passages, 
when, as Epiphanius himself shews, he left untouched those 
which are most directly opposed to his system. 

With the Gospel the case was different. The influence 
of oral tradition upon the form and use of the written 
Gospels was of long continuance. . The personality of their 
authors was in some measure obscured by the character of 
their work. The Gospel was felt to be Christ's Gospel — 
the name which Marcion ventured to apply to his own — 
and not the particular narration of any Evangelist. And 
such considerations as these will explain, though they do 
not justify, the liberty which Marcion allowed himself in 
dealing with the text of St Luke. There can be no doubt 
that St Luke's narrative lay at the basis of his Gospel ; but 



The text of 
the Gospel. 



1 I have not noticed the title 
'Apostolicon' or 'Apostolus' in 
Tertullian ; but it occurs in Epipha- 
nius, and in the Dialogue appended 
to Origen's works. 

2 Of the numerous essays on 
Marcion's Gospel the most import- 



ant are by Kitsch el (1846), Volk- 
mar (i85 / 2), and Hilgenfeld (Theol. 
Jahrb. 1853). See also Introduction 
to the Study of the Gospels, App. D. 
No. iv. 

3 See Note at the end of the 
Chapter. 



I.] Marcion, 275 

it is not equally clear that all the changes which were chap. iv. 
introduced into it were due to Marcion himself. Some of 
the omissions can be explained at once by his peculiar 
doctrines ; but others are unlike arbitrary corrections, and 
must be considered as various readings of the greatest in- 
terest, dating as they do from a time anterior to all other ' 
authorities in our possession 1 . 

There is no evidence to shew on what grounds Marcion The cause of 
rejected the Acts and the Pastoral Epistles 2 . Their cha- 
racter is in itself sufficient to explain the fact ; and there is 
nothing to indicate that his judgment was based on any 
historical objections to their authenticity. In the Acts The Acts. 
there is the clearest recognition of the teaching of St Peter 
as one constituent part of the Christian faith, while Marcion 
regarded it as essentially faulty ; and so again, since he ^Pastoral 
claimed to be the founder of a new line of bishops, it was 
obviously desirable to clear away the foundation of the 
Churches whose Apostolicity he denied. This may have 
been the reason why they were not found in his Canon; 
but it is unsatisfactory to conjecture where history is silent. 
And the mere fact that Marcion did not recognize the Epi- 
stles cannot be used as an argument against their Pauline 
origin, so long as the grounds of his decision are unknown. 

The rejection of the other books of the New Testament The remaining 

~ • ru' • '»' ' • l l books of the 

Canon was a necessary consequence ot Marcion s principles . New Testa- 

Qihetxt' 

The first Apostles according to him had an imperfect 

1 Of the longer omissions the Epistles; but there is evidently some 
most remarkable is that of the para- corruption in the words. 

ble of the Prodigal Son (Epiph. p. 3 The Epistle to the Hebrews is 

338). The quotations from Mar- a continuous vindication of the spi- 

cion's Gospel are collected by Kirch- ritual significance of the Mosaic 

hofer (pp. 366 fF.). Cf. Introduction Covenant which Marcion denied. 

to the Study of the Gospels, App. D. Even supposing therefore that he 

Ko. IV. was acquainted with the tradition 

2 In one» passage Epiphanius (p. that it was written by St Paul, he 
321) according to the present text could- not have accepted it as part 
affirms that he acknowledged at of his Canon. 

least in part the fourteen Pauline 

T 2 



276 The Early Heretics. [paet 

chap. iv. apprehension of the truth, and their writings necessarily 

partook of this imperfection. But it does not follow that 

he regarded them as unauthentic because he set them aside 

as unauthoritative 1 . 

The principles Apart from the important testimony which it bears to 

on which the . . 

Canon was a large section of the JNew lestament writings, the Canon 
of Marcion is of importance as shewing the principle by 
which the New Testament was formed. Marcion accepted 
St Paul's writings as a final and decisive test of St Paul's 
teaching; in like manner the Catholic Church received the 
writings which were sanctioned by Apostolic authority as 
combining to convey the different elements of Christianity. 
There is indeed no evidence to shew that any definite Canon 
of the Apostolic writings was already published in Asia 
Minor when Marcion's appeared; but the minute and varied 
hints which have been already collected tend to prove that 
if it were not expressly fixed it was yet implicitly deter- 
mined by the practice of the Church. And though undue 
weight must not be attached to the language of his adver- 
saries, it is not to be forgotten that they always charge 
him with mutilating something which already existed, and 
not with endeavouring to impose a test which was not gene- 
rally received. 

1 Though Marcion only used St tially an ti- Judaic. On the other 

Luke's Gospel, it appears that he hand this Gospel bears the mark of 

was acquainted with the others, and individuality so strongly as distin- 

endeavoured to overthrow their au- guished from the common form of 

thority, not by questioning their au- Evangelic tradition that it could 

thenticity, but by shewing that those not have been taken to represent 

by whose authority they were pub- the typical Gospel of Christ. No- 

lished were reproved by St Paul thing I believe is known of the 

(adv. Marc. IV. 3) : Connititur ad grounds on which Marcion assailed 

destruendum statum eorum evan- the position of St John's or St Mat- 

geliorum quae propria et sub Apo- thew's Gospels, and it is uncertain 

stolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam whether Tertullian in the passage 

Apostolicorum (St Mark), ut scilicet quoted speaks from a knowledge of 

fidem quam illis adimit suo conferat. what Marcion may have written on 

The rejection of St John's writings the subject or simply from his own 

by Marcion is remarkable, because point of sight, 
the Gospel is in its tendency esscn- 



L] The Early Heretics. 277 

§ 10. Tatian. chap. iv. 

The history of Tatian throws an important light on The relation 

-r» i .... °f Tatian to 

that of Marciori. Both were naturally restless, inquisitive, Mardon. 
impetuous. They were subject to the same influences, 
and were probably resident for a while in the same city 1 . 
Both remained for some time within the Catholic Church, 
and then sought the satisfaction of their peculiar wants in 
a system of stricter discipline and sterner logic. Both 
abandoned the received Canon of Scripture ; and their com- 
bined witness goes far to establish it in its integrity. They 
exhibit different phases of the same temper ; and while they 
testify to the existence of a critical spirit among Christians 
of the second century, they point to a Catholic Church as 
the one centre from which their systems diverged. 

Tatian was an Assyrian by birth, and a pagan, but no The event/ui- 
less than his future master Justin an ardent student of W- 
philosophy. Like the most famous men of his age, he 
was attracted to Borne, and there he met Justin, — that 
'most admirable man/ as he calls him — whose influence 
and experience could not fail to win one of such a character 
as Tatian's to the Christian faith. The hostility of Crescens 
tested the sincerity of his conversion ; and after the death 
of Justin he devoted himself to carrying on the work 
which his master had begun. For a time his work was suc- 
cessfully accomplished, and Bhodon was among his scholars. 
But afterwards, in consequence of his elevation, as Irenaeus 
asserts, he introduced novelties of doctrine into his teach- 
ing ; and at last returning to the East, placed himself at the 
head of the sect of the Encratites, combining the Valenti- 
nian doctrine of iEons with the asceticism of Marcion 2 . 

The strange vicissitudes of Tatian's life contribute to The consequent 

1 Tat. Orat. c. 18; Just. Ap. I. iq. Iren. c. Hcer. i. 28. 1 (Euseb. 
26. //. B.^iv. 29). -Epiph. Beer. xlvi. 

2 Tatian, Orat. cc. 42, 1, 35, 18, Cf. Iren. c. Hcer. 111. 23. 8. 



278 The Early Heretics. [part 

chap. iv. the value of his evidence. In part he continues the testi- 
^hileiicience. mon y of Justin, and in part he completes the Canon of 
Marcion. Doubts have been raised as to Justin's acquaint- 
ance with the writings of St Paul and St John ; and yet 
we find his scholar using them without hesitation. Mar- 
cion is said to have rejected the Pastoral Epistles on criti- 
cal grounds ; and Tatian, who was not less ready to trust 
to his individual judgment, affirmed that the Epistle to 
Titus was most certainly the Apostle's writing. 
The testimo- The existing work of Tatian, his Address to Greeks, 

vies contained. ot • i • rni • 

in Ms Address offers no scope for Scriptural quotations. There is abund- 

to Greeks ... 

ant evidence to prove his deep reverence for the writings 
of the Old Testament, and yet only one anonymous quota- 
tion from it occurs in his Address 1 ; but it is most worthy 
of notice that in the same work he makes clear references 
to the Gospel of St John, to a parable recorded by St 
Matthew, and probably to the Epistle of St Paul to the 
Romans and his first Epistle to the Corinthians, and to 
the Apocalypse 2 . The absence of more explicit testimony 
to the books of the New Testament is to be accounted for 
by the style of his writing, and not by his unworthy esti- 
mate of their importance. 
and in Ms A f ew fragments and notices in other writers help to 

fragments. ° x 

extend the evidence of Tatian. Eusebius relates on the 
authority of others that 'he dared to alter some of the 
'expressions of the Apostle (Paul), correcting their style 3 .' 
In this there is nothing to shew that Eusebius was aware 
of greater differences as to the contents of the New Testa- 
.nient between the Catholics and Tatian than might fall 

1 Orat. c. 15; Ps. viii. 5. The Romans i. 20, c. 4; vii. 15, c. it. 
quotation occurs in Heb. ii. 7; and 1 Corinthians iii. 16, ii. 14, c. 15. 
it may be remarked that Tatian just Apoc. xxi. sq. c. 20. 

before uses the word airavyao~[xa 3 Euseb. H. E. IV. 29 : rod dwo- 

(Heb. i. 3). gtoKov cpacrl roK^rjaaL tlvols avrbv 

2 St Matthew xiii. 44, Orat. c. ixeracppdaat cpwvds, ws €Tri§iop6ov- 
30. St John i. 1, Orat. c. 5 ; i. 3, c. /uevou avruv ri]v rijs cppdaeus <rvv- 
19; i. 5, c. 13. ra^iv. 



I] 



Tatian. 



279 



under the name of various readings ; yet in this it appears chap it. 
that he was deceived. Jerome states expressly that Tatian 
rejected some of the Epistles of St Paul, though he main- 
tained the authenticity of that to Titus 1 . However this may 
be, it can be gathered from Clement of Alexandria, Irenseus, 
and Jerome, that he endeavoured to derive authority for his . 
peculiar opinions from the Epistles to the Corinthians and 
Galatians, and probably from the Epistle to the Ephesians 
and the Gospel of St Matthew 2 . Nor is this all : the name 
of one out of 'the great multitude of his compositions' is 
not the least important element of his testimony; his Dia- 
tessaron is apparently the first recognition of a fourfold 
Gospel. 

The earliest mention of the Diatessaron 3 of Tatian is His Diatessa- 
found in Eusebius. ' Tatian,' he says, ' the former leader ™unt of it* 
' of the Encratites, having put together in some strange G££ 
' fashion a combination and collection of the Gospels, gave 
'this the name of the Diatessaron, and the work is still 
' partially current 4 .' The words evidently imply that the 



1 Pref. in Tit. (Fr. n, Otto) : Ta- 
tianus Eneratitarum patriarches, 
qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli Epistolas 
repudiavit, hanc vel ruaxime (i. e. the 
Ep. to Titus) Apostoli pronuncian- 
dam credidit, parvi pendens Marci- 
onis et aliorum qui cum eo in hac 
parte couseritiunt assertion em. 

It is probable that he rejected the 
Epistles to Timothy (cf. Otto I. c), 
but there is no evidence to prove it. 
Many of the Encratites rejected St 
Paul altogether. Cf. next page, n. i. 

2 St Matthew vi. 19; xxii. 30; 
Clem. Alex. Strom, ill. 12. 86 (fr. 2). 

1 Corinthians vii. 5 ; Clem. Alex. 
/. r. 81 (fr. 1): xv. 22; Iren. ill. 23. 
8 (fr. 5). 

Galatians vi. 8; Hieron. Comm. 
in loc. (fr. 3). 

Ephesians iv. 24 ; Clem. Alex. I. c. 
82 (fr. 8) 6 irakaibs avr)p /ecu 6 kcilvos. 

2 No notice is taken of the Dia- 



tessaron in Otto ? s Edition of Tatian. 
The most exact account of it with 
which I am acquainted is that of 
Credner, Bcitrcige, 1. pp. 437 ff. He 
endeavours to shew that the Diates- 
saron was in fact a form of the Pe- 
trine Gospel, and identical with that 
of Justin Martyr (p. 444). When 
he says (p. 48) that the Diatessaron 
is spoken of ' bald als eine von ihm 
1 selbst (Tatian) verfasste, gottlose 
1 Harmonie aus unsern vier Evange- 
'lien. bald als cine cigene, selbstandige 
' Schrift,' I confess that I do not 
recognize his usual accuracy and 
candour. His further arguments do 
not add plausibility to his conclu- 
sion : Gcsck. d. N. T. Kanon, p. 22. 
4 Euseb. H. E. iv. 29: 6 fxevroi. 
ye 7rp6repos avrCcv &pyr]yos 6 Tari- 
avbs crvvd(p€Ldv tlvol kclI avvayooy^qv 
ovk ch5' 07rws t&v evayyeXiwv <rvvdeis 
to dta Teaadpwv tovto irpQauvbimaev 



280 



The Early Heretics. 



[part 



chap. IV. 



Epiphanius, 
and 



Theodoret. 



Canonical Gospels formed the basis of Tatian's Harmony ; 
and that this was the opinion of Eusebius is placed beyond 
all doubt by the preceding sentence, in which he states 
that 'the Severians who consolidated Tatian's heresy made 
( use of the Law and the Prophets and the Gospels, while 
'they spoke ill of the Apostle Paul, rejecting his Epistles, 
'and refusing to receive the Acts of the Apostles 1 .' The 
next testimony is that of Epiphanius, who writes that 
1 Tatian is said to have been the author of the Harmony 
* of the four Gospels which some call the Gospel according 
'to the Hebrews 2 .' The express mention of the four 
Gospels is important as fixing the meaning of the original 
title. Not long afterwards Theodoret gives a more exact 
account of the character and common use of the book. 
' Tatian also composed the Gospel called Diatessaron, re- 
' moving the genealogies, and all the other passages which 
' shew that Christ was born of David according to the flesh. 
' This was used not only by the members of his party, but 
' even by those who followed the Apostolic doctrine, &s they 
'did not perceive the evil design of the composition, but 
' used the book in their simplicity for its conciseness. And 



5 kcll wapd new elcr^Ti vvv (peperac. 
Eusebius evidently spoke from hear- 
say ; but he attributes the title of the 
book to Tatian himself, and makes 
no mention of any Apocryphal addi- 
tions to the Evangelic narrative. 

The term did reaa dpuv was used in 
music to express the concord of the 
fourth (avXXa^rj). This sense may 
throw some light upon the name. 

1 Euseb. I. c. Credner (p. 439) 
supposes that the term Severiani was 
merely a translation of iyKparrjraL 
Origen (c. Cels. V. 65) mentions the 
Encratites among those who reject- 
ed the Epistles of St Paul. They re- 
ceived some Apocryphal books also : 
K^xpW TaL 8£ ypa<pcus irpoTorvirm 
(l.TrpuTOTinrois) rats Xeyo/xevais 'Ap- 
dpeov Kal 'Iwdvvov irpd^eaiv /ecu Owyua 



kclI diroKp^KpoLs rial (Epiph. Hcer, 
xlvii. 1). 

2 Epiph. Hcer, XLVI. i : Xeyerai 5£ 
rb 5id recradpcov evayyeXiuv U7r' avrov 
yeyevrjcrdcu ftirep Kara 'Efipaiovs tlv£s 
tcaXovcri. Some perhaps may be in- 
clined to change etiayyeXiwv into ev- 
ayyiXiov. 

No stress can be laid on this con- 
jectural identification of the Diates- 
saron with the Gospel according to 
the Hebrews. Epiphanius appears 
to give no credit to it ; and the be- 
lief admits of easy explanation. Both 
books were current in the same 
countries, and differed from the Ca- 
nonical Gospels by the omission of 
the genealogies. Few writers out of 
Palestine could compare the books so 
as to determine their real difference. 



I.] Tatian. 281 

' I found also myself more than two hundred such books chap. nr. 
'in our churches {i.e. in Syria), which had been received 
'with respect ; and having gathered all together, I caused 
1 them to be laid aside, and introduced in their place the 
1 Gospels of the four Evangelists 1 .' Not only then was the 
Diatessaron grounded on the four Canonical Gospels, but 
in its general form it was so orthodox as to enjoy a wide 
ecclesiastical popularity. The heretical character of the 
book was not evident upon the surface of it, and consisted 
rather in faults of defect than in erroneous teaching. Theo- 
doret had certainly examined it, and he like earlier writers 
regarded it as a compilation from the four Gospels. He 
speaks of omissions which were at least in part natural in 
a Harmony, but notices no such Apocryphal additions as 
would have found place in any Gospel not derived from 
Canonical sources. The later history of the Diatessaron is 
involved in confusion. Another Diatessaron was composed Later Syrian 
by Ammonius of Alexandria not long afterwards, and in 
process of time the two were confused 2 . It is stated how- 
ever by Dionysius Bar Salibi, a writer of the twelfth cen- 
tury, that Ephrem Syrus commented on the Diatessaron 
of Tatian, and that Tatian's work commenced with the 
first words of St John's Gospel. The fact in itself is by no 
means improbable, as appears from the narrative of Theo- 
doret and from the use which Tatian elsewhere made of 
the fourth Gospel ; but its authenticity is rendered ques- 
tionable by a passage in Gregory Bar Hebrseus, who relates 

1 Theodor. Hceret. Fab. I. 20 avvTo,ucp tQ (3i(3Xicp -xpt)udp.evoi. Eu- 

(Credn. p. 442): ovtos Kal to did pov de KayCo irXelovs rj diaxoalas pi- 

reaadpoju KaXov/mevou crvure'deiKev ev- (3\ovs roiauras evrals trap rjfxti/ ckkXtj' 

ayyeXiov, t<xs yeveaXoyias irepiKo-ipas crlais rert/uirj/uLevas Kal irdcras avvaya- 

Kal ra dXXa oca e/c (Tirepp.aros Aa[3l8 yCov aired e/JLrjv Kal rd rCcv Terrdpwv 

Kara adpKa yeyevr)\xhov tov 'Kvpiov evayyeXiarQv dvTeLarjy ay ov evayye- 

detKvvaiv. i BxPV <Tai;T0 <5£ rovrcp ov Xta. The technical sense of tcaicovp- 

fxovov ol ttjs €K€lvov o-vpLpLoplas dXXa yla (malitia) forbids us to lay any 

Kal ol reus aTToaroXiKoTs eirbfxevoi. doy- undue stress on the word. 
/jLaai, tt)v ttjs o~vv0r]K7)s KaKovpylav 2 See the next note. 

ovk eypwKdres, d\Y dirXovarepop d>s 



282 



The Early Heretics. 



[part 



CHAP. IT. 



The title 

Diatessaron. 



General result 
of the Chapter. 



that Ephreni commented on the Diatessaron of Ammonius, 
and that the words in question were found in that 1 . It is 
indeed quite possible that both Harmonies began in the 
same way, and even that the Harmony of Ammonius was a 
mere revision of that of Tatian. But it is unnecessary to dis- 
cuss a point which if it do not confirm the Canonical origin 
of Tatian's Harmony does not in any way invalidate it. 

All that can be gathered from history falls in with the 
idea suggested by the title of the book. And as there is 
no strong external evidence in support of another view, 
the title itself must be allowed to have great weight. 
There can be no reasonable doubt that the name was 
given to the work by Tatian himself; and if the Diatessa- 
ron was not a compilation of four Gospels,, what is the ex- 
planation of the number ? If again these four Gospels 
were not those which we receive, what other four Gospels 
ever formed a collection which needed no further descrip- 
tion than the Four ? I am not aware that any answer has 
been given to these questions ; and in connexion with the 
belief and assertions of early Fathers they are surely de- 
cisive as to the sources of Tatian's Diatessaron. And thus 
once again a heretical writer is the first to recognize out- 
wardly an important fact in the history of the Canon 2 . 

It must indeed have been evident to the reader 
throughout this chapter that the testimony of heretical 
writers to the books of the New Testament tends on the 



1 The original passages are given 
at length by Credner (pp. 446 sqq.). 
Cf. Lardner, ir. pp. 417 sqq. The 
testimony of Victor of Capua (c. 
A. D. 545) shews how great was the 
confusion even in his time between 
the Harmonies of Tatian and Am- 
monius (Lardner, p. 418). If there 
be no error in his statement that 
Tatian's Harmony was called Dia- 
pente, the fifth Gospel alluded to in 
the name was probably that accord- 



ing to the Hebrews, and the title 
was given in consequence of the 
confusion already noticed. A Frank- 
ish Version of Ammonius' Harmony 
has been edited by A. Schmeller, 
but I have not been able to examine 
it with any care. 

2 Tatian's Diatessaron is said to 
have contained one important ad- 
dition (Matt, xxvii. 49), which is 
however found in NBCLU, al. Cf. 
Tischendorf, in loc. 



I.] Conclusion of the Fust Part. 283 

whole to give greater certainty and weight to that which chap. iv. 
is drawn from other sources. So far from obscuring or 
contravening the judgment of the Church generally, they 
offer material help in the interpretation of it. And this 
follows naturally from their position. As separatists they 
fixed the standard by which they were willing to be judged, 
wherever it differed from that which was commonly re- 
ceived. And all early controversy proceeds on this basis. 
The authority of the Apostolic Scriptures is everywhere 
assumed: this is the rule, and only exceptions from the 
rule are noticed in detail. 



A BRIEF summary of the results which have been ob- conclu- 
. ... SION. 

tained in the First Part of our inquiry will shew how The summary 

far they satisfy that standard of reasonable completeness Part. 
which was laid down at the outset. The conditions of the 
problem must be fairly considered, as well as the character 
of the solution ; and it cannot be too often repeated that 
the period which has been examined is truly the dark age 
of Church-history. In the absence of all trustworthy guid- 
ance every step requires to be secured by painful investi- 
gation ; and if I have entered into tedious details, it has 
been because I know that nothing can rightly be neglected 
which tends to throw light upon the growth of the Catho- 
lic Church. And the growth of the Catholic Church is 
the comprehensive fact of which the formation of the 
Canon is one element. 

The evidence which has been collected is confessedly i. The di- 

vect evidence 

fragmentary both in character and substance. And that is/ragmen- 

M tary, but 

it must be so follows from the nature of the case. But 
when all the fragments are combined, the result exhibits 
the chief marks of complete trustworthiness. 

First, it is of wide range both in' time and place, of wide range, 



284 



Conclusion of the First Part 



[part 



of unaffected 
simplicity, 



coxcltj- Beginning with Clement of Rome the companion of St Paul 
an uninterrupted series of writers belonging to the chief 
Churches of Christendom witness with more or less fulness 
to the books of the New Testament. And though the evi- 
dence is thus extended, yet it is not without its points of 
connexion. Most of the writers who have been examined 
visited Rome : all of them might have been acquainted 
with Polycarp. 

The character of the evidence is no less striking than 
its extent. The allusions to Scripture are perfectly natu- 
ral. The quotations are prefaced by no apology or expla- 
nation. The language of the books used was so familiar 
as to have become part of the common dialect. And when 
men speak without any clear intimation that the opinions 
which they express are peculiar to themselves, it is evident 
that they express the general judgment of their time. The 
various testimonies which have been collected thus unite 
in one ; and that one is the general j udgment of the Church. 
This is further shewn by the uniform tendency of the 
evidence. It is always imperfect, but the different parts 
are always consistent. It is derived from men of the most 
different characters, and yet all that they say is strictly 
harmonious. Scarcely a fragment of the earliest Christian 
literature has been preserved which does not contain some 
passing allusion to the Apostolic writings ; and yet in all 
there is no discrepancy. The influence of some common 
rule is the only natural explanation of this common con- 
sent. Nor is evidence altogether wanting to prove the 
and sustained Qxistence of such a rule. The testimony of individuals is 
judgment of expressly confirmed by the testimony of Churches. Two 
and great Versions were current in the East and West from 

the earliest times, and the Canons which they exhibit agree 
with remarkable exactness with the scattered and casual 
notices of ecclesiastical writers. And their common con- 



of perfect uni 
formity, 



I.] Conclusion of the First Part 285 

tents — the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St conclu- 
Paul, the first general Epistles of St Peter and St John — 
constitute a Canon of acknowledged books. And this 
agreement of independent writers is not limited to those 
who were members of the same Catholic Church : the evi- the practice of 

heretics. 

dence of heretics is even more full and clear ; and when ■ 
they differed from the common opinion, doctrinal and not 
historical objections occasioned the difference. 

One circumstance which at first sight appeared to em- The relation 
barrass the inquiry has been found in reality to give it and Tradition 

,. . . ,. . , , in regard to 

lite and consistency. A traditional word was current the canon. 
among Christians from the first coincidently with the writ- 
ten Word. It is difficult indeed to conceive that it should 
have been otherwise if we regard the Apostles as vitally 
connected with their age ; but it is evident that the two 
might have been in many ways so related as to have pro- 
duced an unfavorable impression as to the completeness of 
our present Canon. But now on the contrary the New 
Testament is found to include all the great elements which 
are elsewhere referred to Apostolic sources. Many imper- 
fect narratives of our Lord's life were widely current, but 
the Canonical Gospels offer the types on which they were 
formed. In the first ages the New Testament may serve 
at once as the measure and as the rule of tradition. 

For the earliest evidence for the authenticity of the u. The ou- 
books of which it is composed is not confined to direct the canonu 
testimony. Perhaps that is still more convincing which history of the 

' ... . vi -x- x- early Church. 

springs from their peculiar characteristics as representing 
special types of Christian truth. No one probably will 
deny the existence of distinguishing features in the several 
forms of Apostolic teaching, and the history of the sub- 
apostolic age is the history of corresponding differences 
developed in early Christian writers, and in turn trans- 
formed into the germs of heresy. The ecclesiastical phase 



286 



Conclusion of the First Part 



[part 



Yet there are 
(i) doubts as 
to the contents 
of the Canon, 
and 



conclu- of the difference is in every case later than the scriptural ; 
sion. ; J L 

and thus, while I have spoken of the first century after 
the Apostles as the dark age of Church-history, the recog- 
nition of the great elements of the New Testament fur- 
nishes a satisfactory explanation of the progress of the 
Church during that critical period, which on the other 
hand itself offers no place for the forgery of such books as 
are included in the Canon. 

But while the evidence for the authenticity of the Ca- 
nonical books of the New Testament is up to this point 
generally complete and satisfactory, it is not such as to 
remove every doubt to which the subject is liable. At 
present no trace has been found of the existence of the 
second Epistle of St Peter 1 . And the Epistles of St James 
and St Jude, the second and third Epistles of St John, the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, were received 
only partially, though they were received exactly in those' 
places in which their history was most likely to be known 2 . 
( 2 ) the Mea of And more than this, the idea of a Canon itself found 

a Canon vjas . . . 

implied rather no public and authoritative expression except where it was 

than ex- x x . x 

pressed. required by the necessities of translation. 

during the first age and long afterwards the 
Church offered no determination of the limits and ground- 
work of the Canon, they were practically settled by that 
instinctive perception of truth, if it may not be called by 
a nobler name, which I believe can be recognized as pre- 
siding over the organization of the early Church. The 
Canon of Marcion may have been the first which was pub- 



But though 
Catholic 



1 One coincidence in addition to 
that noticed in p. 194, n. 5, has 
been pointed out to me which de- 
serves notice. The language of the 
well-known reference to St Paul in 
Polycarp's Epistle (c. 3) bears con- 
siderable resemblance to the corre- 
sponding passage in 1 Pet. iii. 15 



(crocfria, €7ri<rTo\ai), but in the ab- 
sence of all other evidence it is im- 
possible to insist on this. 

2 Perhaps the Epistle of St Jude 
forms an exception to this statement. 
But the history of the Epistle is 
extremely obscure. 



I.] Conclusion of the First Part. 287 

licly proposed, but the general consent of earlier Catholic qonclu- 
writers proves that within the Church there had been no 
need for pronouncing a judgment on a point which had 
not been brought into dispute. The formation of the 
Canon may have been gradual, but it was certainly undis- 
turbed. It was a growth, and not a series of contests. 

In the next part it will be seen to what extent this T , he J e \ '. 

1 the teachmn 

agreement as to the Catholic Canon was established at the of this period 

° to be soyjfld 

end of the second century. 'And this will furnish in some J^2mS2 
decree a measure of what had been alreadv settled. " The °s thene:tt ' 
opinions of Irenseus, Clement, and Tertullian, were formed 
by influences which were at work within the age of Poly- 
carp; and it is wholly arbitrary to suppose that the later 
writers originated the principles which they organized. 



Note : see page 274. 

The Epistles were arranged according to Tertullian (adv. Marc. V.) in 
the following order : Galatians, i and 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 and 2 Thes- 
salonians, Ephesians (Laodiceans), Colossians, Philippians, Philemon. 

Epiphanius gives the same order, with the single exception that he 
transposes the last two {Hair. xlii. p. 373). 

Tertullian expressly affirms the identity of the Epistles to the Laodiceans 
and to the Ephesians {ib. 17) ; and implies that Marcion prided himself on 
the restoration of the true title, quasi et in isto diligeniissimus explorator. 
The language of Epiphanius is self-contradictory. 

The statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius as to the Epistle to Phi- 
lemon are at first sight opposed ; but I believe that Epiphanius either used 
the word hiaarpbcpus loosely, or was misled by some author who applied it 
to the transposition and not to the corruption of the Epistle. He uses the 
same word of the Epistle to the Philippians, but Tertullian gives no hint 
that that Epistle was tampered with in an especial manner by Marcion. 
Cf. Epiph. Hair. xlii. pp. 373 f. ; Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 20, 21. Again 
Epiphanius says (ib. p. 371) that the Epistles to the Thessalonians were 
1 distorted in like manner. ' 

Epiphanius notices the following readings as peculiar to Marcion : 

Eph. v. 31, om. rrj yvvcufd. So Jerome. 

Gal. v. 9, do\o7. So Lucif., al. 

1 Cor. ix. 8, 6 vofios + 'Mcovaecos. See the following verse. 

— x. 9, XpLcrrbv for Kvpiov. So DEFGKL, al. 

— — 19, tl odv 4>7}jull; 8tl iepbOvTov tl £<ttlv 7) €l5co\66vt6u tl Zcttiv; 
d\X on, K.r.X. Cf. varr. lectt. 

1 Cor. xiv. 19, dia rbv v6jj*ov for 5. rod voosyiov. So Ambrst. 

2 Cor. iv. J 3, om. Kara rb yeypapLfievov. 

The language of Tertullian is more general. Speaking of the Epistle 



288 Conclusion of the First Part. 

CONCLU- *° ^ Qe R° mans ne sa y s : Quantas autem foveas in ista vel maxime Epistola 
{SION. Marcion fecerit auferendo quae voluit de nostri Instrumenti integritate pa- 

rebit (adv. Marc. v. 13); but he does not enumerate any of these lacunae, 
nor are they noticed by Epiphanius. In the next chapter, after quoting 
Rom. viii. it, he adds Salio et hie amplissimum abruptum intercisse scrip- 
turse, and then passes to Rom. x. 2. Epiphanius says nothing of any 
omission here ; and the language of Tertullian is at least ambiguous, espe- 
cially when taken in connexion with his commentary on Rom. xi. 33. It 
appears however from Origen (Comm. in Rom. xvi. 25) that Marcion omitted 
the last two chapters of the Epistle. 

In the Epistle to the Galatians it seems that there was some omission 
in the third chapter (Tert. adv. Marc. v. 3), but it is uncertain of what 
extent it was. In Gal. ii. 5 Marcion read ovdi, while Tertullian omitted 
the negative (I. c). 

The other variations mentioned by Tertullian are the following: 

1 Cor. xv. 45, Kvpios for 'Adapt, (2). Cf. varr. lectt. 

2 Cor. iv. 4, Marcion was evidently right in his punctuation. In quibus 
deus 03vi hujus...~N os contra, says Tertullian, sic distinguendum dicimus ; 
In quibus deus, dehinc: cevi hujus excaicavit mentes infidelium (adv. Marc, 
v. 11). 

Eph. ii. 15, om. aurov. 

— — 20, om. Kal irpocfynrdv. 

— iii. 9, om. ev. 

■ — vi. 2, om. fJTis — end. 

1 Thess. ii. 15, + lbiovs (before ir pocprjT as). So D*** E** KL, al. 

2 Thess. i. 8, om. h irvpl <p\oyos. 

In addition to these various readings Jerome (in loc.) mentions the 
omission of /cat Qeov Ilarpbs in Gal. i. 1 ; and from the Dialogue (c. 5) it 
appears that the Marcionites read 1 Cor. xv. 38 sqq. with considerable dif- 
ferences from the common text. 

The examination of these readings perhaps belongs rather to the his- 
tory of the text than to the history of the Canon ; but they are in them- 
selves a proof of the minute and jealous attention paid to the N. T. Scrip- 
tures. If the text was watched carefully, the Canon cannot have been a 
matter of indifference. 



SECOND PERIOD. 

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 

FROM THE TIME OF HEGESIPPUS TO THE 

PERSECUTION OF DIOCLETIAN. 

a.d. 170—303. 



U 



Tolc neiGoMeNOic mh ANGpoonooN gTnai cYrrpAMMATA TAC 
iepAC BiBAoyc aAA' el eninNOiAc toy ap'oy ttn6ymatoc BoyAh- 

MATI TOY HATpdc TO)N OAOON AlA 'll-ICof XpiCTof TAYTAC ANA- 
rerpA'({)0AI KAI 6IC HMAC 6AHAY06NAI; TAC (fJAINOMGNAC OAOYC 

YnoAeiKTeoN, exoMeNOic toy kanonoc thc 'lncof XpiCTof kata 

AiaAo^hn TOON ATTOCTOAOON OypANlOY IkkAhciac. 

Origexes. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE CANON OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS AT THE 
CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 

Conimunicamus cum Ecclcsiis Apostolicis quod nulli doctrirva diver sa: hoc 

est testimonium veritatis. 

Tjsbtullianus. 

ri^HE close of the second century marks a great change chap. i. 
JL in the character and position of the Christian Church. The three 

t i • i i i'i stages of the 

It cannot be a mere accident that up to that time the re- advance of 

n . -.. t -, . Christianity. 

mams ot its literature are both unsystematic and fragmen- 
tary, a meagre collection of Letters, Apologies, and tradi- 
tions, while afterwards Christian works ever occupy the 
foremost rank in genius as well as in spiritual power. 
The contrast really expresses the natural progress of Chris- 
tianity. At first its work was in the main with the heart ; 
and when that was filled, it next asserted its right over the 
intellect. And this conquest was necessarily gradual and 
slow. A Christian dialect could not be fixed at once ; 
and the scientific aspect of the new doctrines could be 
determined only by the experience of many efforts to unite 
them with existing systems. It was thus that for a time 
philosophic views of Christianity were chiefly to be found 
without the Church, since the partial representation of 
I its philosophic worth naturally preceded any adequate 
! realization of it. And perhaps it is not difficult to see a 
fitness in that disposition of events which committed the 
teaching of the Apostles to minds essentially receptive 

V 2 



292 Canon of the Acknowledged Books [part 

chap. i. and conservative, that it might be inwrought into the life 
of men before it became the subject of subtle analysis. 
However this may be, it is impossible not to recognize the 
vast access of power which characterizes the works of 
Irenseus, Clement, and Tertullian, when compared with 
earlier writings, both in their scope and in their composi- 
tion. In them Christianity asserts its second conquest : 
the easiest and yet the most perilous alone remained. It 
had won its way to the heart of the simple and to the 
judgment of the philosopher: it had still to claim the 
deference of the statesman. And each success brought its 
corresponding trial. When Wisdom (yvcocris) was ranged 
with Truth, it was not always contented to. folio w; and in 
after times the subjugation of the imperial government 
prepared the way for the corruption of the Church by 
material influences. 
The connexion B u t though the Fathers of the close of the second cen- 

of the Fathers & 

of the second ^ ury are thus prominently distinguished from those who 

period vnth J r jo 

wtsZrY^ 6 ' P rece ded them, it must not be forgotten that they were 
trained by that earlier generation which they surpassed. 
They inherited the doctrines which it was their task to 
arrange and harmonize. They made no claims to any dis- 
coveries in Christianity, but with simple and earnest zeal 
appealed to the testimony of the Apostolic Church to con- 
firm the truth of their writings. They never admitted the 
possibility of being separated from their forefathers ; and 
if it has been shewn that the continuity of the Christian 
.faith has hitherto suffered no break, from this point it is 
confessedly maintained without interruption. From Lyons, 
from Carthage, from Alexandria, one voice proceeds, the 
witness and herald of the truth. 

In other words the Catholic Church was now exter- 
nally established. Partial but not exclusive views of truth 
were outwardly harmonized. The barriers of local or tra- 



it.] at the Close of the Second Century. 293 

ditional separation between different societies were broken chap. i. 
down. The various sides of Christian doctrine, after the 
rude test of conflict and the still surer trial of life, were 
combined in one great whole. Henceforth complexity in 
faith was seen to be the condition of unity. The Christian 
body, if we may use such an image, awoke to the consci- 
ousness of what it was. No great change or revolution 
passed over it: no great mind moulded its creed or its 
fabric : history itself revealed the sublime truth of which 
it was itself the preparation and the witness. 

With regard to the Canon of the New Testament this RowMsbears 

o on the fa story 

development of the Church is of the greatest importance, of the Canon. 
In the final establishment of outward Catholicity that 
which has been already recognized in practice finds a 
formal expression. As long as those lived who had seen 
the Apostles ; as long as the teaching of the Apostles was 
fresh in men's minds ; it was, as has been already seen, 
unlikely that their writings as distinguished from their 
words would be invested with any special importance. 
But traditions soon became manifold, wdiile the books re- 
mained unchanged : a catholic Church was organized, and 
it was needful to determine the Covenant in which its laws 
were written: Christianity furnished subjects for the phi- 
losopher, and it was requisite to settle from what sources 
his premises might be taken. As soon as the want was 
felt, it was satisfied. As soon as an independent Christian 
literature arose in which it was reasonable to look for any 
definite recognition of the Apostolic writings, we find that 
recognition substantially clear and correct. With the ex- 
ception of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the two shorter 
Epistles of St John, the second Epistle of St Peter, the 
Epistles of St James and St Jude, and the Apocalypse 1 , 

1 The position of the Apocalypse he up to this time an acknowledged 
is anomalous. If it were not for Book, 
its omission in the Peshito it would 



294 



Canon of the Acknowledged Books. [part 



chap. I. 



The Canon of 
acknowledged 
books at the 
close of the 
second cen- 
tury. 



On what 
grounds it 
rested. 



all the other books of the New Testament are acknow- 
ledged as Apostolic and authoritative throughout the 
Church at the close of the second century. The evidence 
of the great Fathers by which the Church is represented 
varies in respect of these disputed books, but the Canon 
of the acknowledged books is established by their common 
consent. Thus the testimony on which it rests is not 
gathered from one quarter but from many, and those the 
most widely separated by position and character. It is 
given, not as a private opinion, but as an unquestioned 
fact : not as a late discovery, but as an original tradition. 

From this point then it will be needless to accumulate 
testimonies to the Canonicity of the four Gospels, of the 
Acts, of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul, of the first Epistles 
of St John and St Peter. No one at present will deny that 
they occupied the same position in the estimation of Chris- 
tians in the time of Irenseus as they hold now. But here 
one strange fact must be noticed : the authenticity of the 
Apocalypse, which is supported by the satisfactory testi- 
mony of early writers, was disputed for the first time in the 
Western Church in the course of the third century. In 
other words there was a critical spirit still alive among 
Christians which impelled them even then to test afresh 
the records on which their faith rested. 

But before dismissing the Canon of the acknowledged 
books it will be well to revert once again at greater length 
to the manner in which it is recognized by Irenseus and 
his contemporaries. Their evidence, considered in con- 
nexion with the circumstances under which it is given, will 
go far to establish the point to which our investigations 
have all tended, that the formation of a Canon was among 
the first instinctive acts of the Christian society : that it 
was at first imperfect as the organization of the Church 
was at first incomplete: that it attained its full proportions 



II.] Irenceus. 295 

by a sure growth as the development of the Church itself chap. i. 
was finally matured. 

Nothing is known directly of the origin of the Gallican L The u*u- 
Church ; but from several ritual peculiarities its founda- Gaiiican 

' r Church. 

tion may be probably referred to teachers from Asia Minor 1 , 
with which province it long maintained an intimate con- 
nexion. And thus Gaul owed its knowledge of Christi- 
anity to the same country from which in former times it 
had drawn its civilization : the Christian missionary com- 
pleted the work of the Phocaean exile. However this may 
have been, the first notice of the Church shews its extent 
and constancy. In the seventeenth year of the reign of i 77 a.d. 
Antoninus Verus it was visited by a fierce persecution, of 
which Eusebius has preserved a most affecting narrative 
addressed by the Christians of Yienne and Lyons to c the The Epistle of 
'brethren in Asia and Phrygia who held the same faith of vienne and 
'and hope of redemption as themselves 2 .' This narrative 
was written immediately after the events which it de- 
scribes, and is everywhere penetrated by scriptural lan- 
guage and thought. It contains no reference by name to 
any book of the Xew Testament, but its coincidences of 
language with the Gospels of St Luke and St John, with 
the Acts of the Apostles, with the Epistles of St Paul to 
the Romans, Corinthians (?), Ephesians, Philrppians, and 
the first to Timothy, with the first catholic Epistles of St 
Peter and St John, and with the Apocalypse, are unequi- 
vocal 3 . In itself this fact would perhaps call for little 
notice after what has been said of the general reception of 
the acknowledged books at the close of the second cen- 
tury, but it becomes of importance as being the testimony 
of a Church, and one which was not without connexion 
with the Apostolic age even at the time of the persecution. 

1 Palmer's Origiaes Liturgiece, I. 3 Euseb. I. c. The reference to 

pp. 155 sqq. Apoc. xxii. il is introduced b) T the 

- Eiiseb. II. E. V. I. words ha 77 ypa.(pr) Tr\T]pudr}. 



296 



Canon of the Acknowledged Boohs. [part 



chap. i. In the same Church where Irenseus was a presbyter f zea- 
'lous for the covenant of Christ 1 ' Pothinus was bishop, 
already ninety years old. Like Polycarp he was associated 
with the generation of St John, and must have been born 
before the books of the New Testament were all written. 
And how then can it be supposed with reason that forge- 
ries came into use in his time which he must have been 
able to detect by his own knowledge ? that they were re- 
ceived without suspicion or reserve in the Church over 
which he presided ? that they were upheld by his hearers 
as the ancient heritage of Christians ? It is possible to 
weaken the connexion of the facts by arbitrary hypotheses, 
but interpreted according to their natural meaning they 
tell of a Church united by its head with the times of St 
John to which the books of the New Testament, and the 
books of St John above all others, furnished the unaffected 
Irenes the language of hope and resignation and triumph. And the 
r o/the Se church testimony of Irenseus is the testimony of this Church. 

c. i3<f-^ro a.d ^ or was tn * s ^ ne on ty P onT k in which he came in contact 
with the immediate disciples of the Apostles. It has been 
seen already that he recalled in his old age the teaching of 
Polycarp the disciple of St John ; and his treatise against 
Heresies contains several references 2 to others who were 
closely connected with the Apostolic age. He stood forth 
to maintain no novelties, but to vindicate what had been 
believed of old. Those whom he quoted had borne wit- 
ness to the New Testament Scriptures, and he only conti- 
nued on a greater scale the usage which they had recog- 
nized. When he wished to win back Florinus once his 
fellow-disciple to the truth, he reminded him of the zeal 
and doctrine of Polycarp their common master, and how 
he spake of Christ's teaching and mighty works from the 
words of those who followed Him ' in all things harmoni- 

1 Euseb. II. E. v. 4. 2 Cf. pp. 68 f. 



II.] 



Pantcenus. 



297 



1 ously with the Scriptures 1 .' And is it then possible that chap i. 
he who was taught of Polycarp was himself deceived as to 
the genuine writings of St John ? Is it possible that he 
decided otherwise than his first master, when he speaks of 
the tradition of the Apostles by which the Canon of Scrip- 
ture was determined 2 ? He appeals to the known succes- 
sion of teachers in the Churches of Rome, Smyrna, and 
Ephesus, who held fast up to his own time the doctrine 
which they had received from the first age ; and is it pos- 
sible that he used writings as genuine and authoritative 
which were not recognized by those who must have had 
unquestionable means of deciding on their Apostolic 



origin 



3 ? 



From Lyons we pass to Alexandria. The early history a The testi- 
of the Egyptian Churches is not more certain than that of church of * 
those in Gaul. Tradition indeed assigns the foundation of 
the Church of Alexandria to St Mark, but the best evi- 
dence of its antiquity is found in its state at the time of 
the earliest authentic record which remains of it. Not 
long after the middle of the second century Pantsenus was pantjenus. 
dispatched on amission to 'India' by Demetrius bishop 
of Alexandria at the request of the nation itself 4 . After 



1 Iren. Ep. ad Flor. ap. Euseb. 
H. E. v. 20. 

2 Iren. c. Hair. TV. 33. 8 : Agnitio 
(yvQcTLs) vera est Apostolorum doc- 
trina et antiquus Ecclesiae status in 
universo mundo et character cor- 
poris Christi secundum successiones 
episcoporum quibus illi earn quae in 
unoquoque loco est Ecclesiam tra- 
diderunt; quae pervenit usque ad 
nos custoditione sine fiction* Scrip- 
turarurn tractatio plenissima neque 
additamentum neque ablationem re- 
cipiens. 

3 Volkmar has endeavoured to 
shew that though Irenaeus was ac- 
quainted with 1 Peter, yet he did 
not use it as authoritative Scripture 



(Credner, GescJi. d. N. T. Kanon, 
§ 185). But his argument certainly 
breaks down. See for instance c. 
Beer. IV. 16. 5. Propter hoc ait 
Dominus (Matt. xii. 36)... Et prop- 
ter hoc Petrus ait (1 Peter ii. 16)... 
On the use of the Epistle in the 
Latin Churches, see supra, p. 230, 
n. 2. 

4 Euseb. H. E. v. 10. Hieron. de 
Virr. III. 36. It does not fall with- 
in our present scope to inquire into 
the Hebrew Gospel which Pantsenus 
found among the 'Indians.' The 
mention of the fact shews that at- 
tention was directed to the sacred 
books'. 



298 



Canon of the Acknowledged Books. [part 



chap. I. 



Clement. 

C. 165 — 220 A. 



successfully accomplishing this work he returned to Alex- 
andria, and 'presided over the school (hiarpi^rj) of thefaith- 
' ful there/ The school then was already in existence, how- 
ever much it may have owed to one distinguished alike ' for 
' secular learning and scriptural knowledge/ Indeed there 
is no absolute improbability in the statement of Jerome 1 , 
who interprets the words of Eusebius ' that a school (SiSa- 
' anakeiov) of the Holy Scriptures had existed there after 
c ancient custom' as meaning that 'ecclesiastical teachers had 
' always been there from the time of the Evangelist Mark/ 
Without insisting however on the Apostolic origin of the 
school itself, it seems not improbable that Pantaenus was 
personally connected with some immediate disciples of the 
Apostles. Many contemporaries of Pothinus and Polycarp 
may have survived to declare the teaching of St John ; 
and Photius in fact represents Pantsenus as a hearer of the 
Apostles 2 . At any rate there is not the slightest ground 
for assuming any organic change in the doctrine of the 
Alexandrine Church between the age of the Apostles and 
Pantsenus. Everything on the contrary bespeaks its un- 
broken continuity. And Clement, the second of our wit- 
nesses, was trained in the school of Pantsenus. He speaks 
as the representative of a class devoted specially to the 
study of the Scriptures, and established in a city second 
to none for the advantages and encouragement which it 
offered to literary criticism. Like Irenaeus, Clement ap- 
peals with decision and confidence to the judgment of those 
who had preceded him. His writings were no ' mere com- 
' positions wrought for display,' but contained a faint pic- 
ture ' of the clear and vivid discourses, and of the blessed 
* and truly estimable men- whom it was his privilege to 
'hear/ For though Alexandria was in itself the common 



1 Routh, Hell. Sacr. I. 375. 

s Cod. 118, p. 160, ed. Hoesch.; Lumper, IV. 44; Routh, 1. 377. 



ii.] Clement of Alexandria. 299 

meeting-place of the traditions of the East and West, chap. r. 
Clement had sought them out in their proper sources. As 
far as can be gathered from the clause in which he de- 
scribes his teachers, he had studied in Greece and Italy 
and various parts,, of the East under masters from Ionia, 
from Coele-Syria, from Egypt, and from Assyria, and also 
under a Hebrew in Palestine, before he met with Pan- 
taenus. 'And these men/ he writes, 'preserving the true 
€ tradition of the blessed teaching directly from Peter and 
'James, from John and Paul, the holy Apostles, son re- 
' ceiving it from father (but few are they who are like 
' their fathers), came by God's providence even to us, to 
'deposit among us those seeds [of truth] which were 
'derived from their ancestors and .the Apostles 1 / 

Of the African Church I have already spoken. The ™' ™etes^ 
venerable relics of the Old Latin Version attest the early ^Jj^J} 
reception of the New Testament there, and the care with 
which it was studied. In themselves those fragments are 
incomplete, and often questionable ; but they do not stand 
alone. The writings of Tertullian furnish an invaluable 

1 Clem. Alex. Strom. l. I. n(Euseb. vtav eveyevvqae yf/vxcus. dXX' ol fxev 
E. E. V. n): "Bd-rj de ov ypacpr] els rr\v dXrjdrj rrjs juaKapias cdbfrvres' 5t- 
eirlhei^Lv rerexvacrfx.e'vr) rjde 77 -rrpayjuLa- dacrKaXias irapadocnv evdvs dirb 11^- 
rela dXXd fxot VTrop.vr)ixara els yrjpas rpov re Kal 'lanufiov, 'ludvvov re Kal 
6-qaavpl'gerai Xrjdrjs (pdppLaKov, etdaj- • UatiXov, tQi> dyiwv diroaroXwv, irais 
Xov dre%^a)s /cat CKtoypacpia rG>v evap~ irapd rrarpbs eKdexbuevos (oXiyoL de 
y&v /cat efxipvxuv eKeivwv c3j> Karrj^iu- ol irarpdcnv o/ulolol) tjkov dr) gvv QeQ 
Qr\v ewaKovaai Xbywv re /cat dvdpwv Kal els r\[xds rd rrpoyoviKa eKelva /cat 
fjLaKCLpLtov /cat rQ 6vti d£toX6yau>. rov- diroaroXiKa Karadrjo-bfievoi (nrepfiara' 
tgjv b fiev eirl rrjs 'EAXdSos 6 'Iuvlkos' Kal ed old' 6'rt dyaXXidaovrai, ovxl 
I ol (Euseb. 6) de eirl rrjs fJLeydXrjs'EX- rfj e/c0pd(ret rjadevres \<-yu) rijde, 
Xddos rrjs koLXt)S ddrepos avrQv 2u- pLovrj de rfj Kara rr\v VTroarjfieiuo-Lv 
pias rji> 6 de air Alyvirrov aXXoi de rrjprjaeL. The passage is of great inl- 
and ttjv dvaroXrjv, Kal ravr-qs 6 fxeu portance as Bhewing the intimate in- 
rrjs tQv 'Acrcrvpiuv 6 de ev IlaXat- tercourse between different churches 
err LPT] 'EfipaTos dv^Kadev' vardru) de in Clement's time and the uniform- 
Trepirvxuv {dwdfiei de ovtos irpwros ity of their doctrine. The use of 
rjv) dveiravadix-qv ev Alyvirrcp 6-qpdvas the prepositions is singularly exact 
XeXrjUora. 2t/ceXt/c?7 r$ ovtl (xeXirra and worthy of notice. I have 
irpocprjTLKOV re /cat diroaroXiKov Xet- changed Klotz's punctuation, which 
fiCovos rd dvB-q dpe7r6,uevos aK-qparov makes* the passage unintelligible. 
n 7^wcrea;s XPV^ a rc " s T & v OLKpoufii- 



300 Canon of the Acknowledged Books, [part 

chap. i. commentary on the conclusions which have been drawn 
from them ; and in turn his testimony is the judgment of 
his Church ; an inheritance, and not a deduction. 
tbrtulliaw. Tertullian himself insists on this with characteristic 

c.i6o- 24 oa.d. energy. 'If/ he says, 'it is acknowledged that that is 
' more true which is more ancient, that more ancient which 
'is even from the beginning, that from the beginning 
' which is from the Apostles ; it will in like manner assur- 
' edly be acknowledged that that has been derived by tra- 
' dition from the Apostles which has been preserved invio- 
' late in the Churches of the Apostles. Let us see what 
' milk the Corinthians drank from Paul ; to what rule the 
' Galatians were recalled by his reproofs ; what is read by 
' the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians ; what 
' is the testimony of the Romans, who are nearest to us, to 
' whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel, and that sealed by 
'their own blood. We have moreover Churches founded 
'by John. For even if Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, 
' still the succession of bishops [in the seven Churches] if 
'traced to its source will rest on the authority of John. 
' And the noble descent of other Churches is recognized in 
' the same manner. I say then that among them, and not 
' only among the Apostolic Churches, but among all the 
' Churches which are united with them- in Christian fellow- 
' ship, that Gospel of Luke which we earnestly defend has 
4 been maintained from its first publication 1 / And 'the 

1 Adv. Marc. IV. 5: In summa si proximo sonent, quibus evangelium 

constat id verius quod prius, id prius et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque 

quod et ab initio, ab initio quod ab suo signatum reliquerunt. Habemus 

' Apostolis : pariter utique constabit et Johannis alumnas ecclesias. Nam 

id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod etsi Apocalypsim ejus Marcion re- 

apud ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit spuit, ordo tamen episcoporum ad 

sacrosanctum. Videamus quod lac a originem recensus in Johannem sta- 

Paulo Corinthii hauserint ; ad quam bit auctorem. Sic et caeterarum ge- 

regulam G-alatse sint recorrecti ; quid nerositas recognoscitur. Dico itaque 

legant Philippenses, Thessalonicen- apud illas, nee solas jam Apostolicas 

ses, Ephesii ; quid etiam Koinani de sed apud universas quae illis de so- 



it.] Tertidlian. 301 

1 same authority of the Apostolic Churches will uphold the chap. i. 

1 other Gospels which we have in due succession through 

1 them and according to their usage, I mean those of [the 

1 Apostles] Matthew and John ; although that which was 

1 published by Mark may also be maintained to be Peter's, 

1 whose interpreter Mark was : for the narrative of Luke also 

' is generally ascribed to Paul : [since] it is allowable that 

c that which scholars publish should be regarded as their 

' masters' work/ ' These are for the most part the sum- 

' mary arguments which we employ when we argue about 

1 the Gospels against heretics, maintaining both the order 

1 of time which sets aside the later works of forgers (pos- 

'teritati falsariorum prsescribenti), and the authority of 

' Churches which upholds the tradition of the Apostles ; 

1 because truth necessarily precedes forgery, and proceeds 

'from them to whom it has been delivered 1 / 

The words of Tertullian sum up clearly and decisively au appeal to 

. * antiquity. 

what has been said before of the evidence of Irenaeus and 
Clement. All the Fathers at the close of the second cen- 
tury agree in appealing to the testimony of antiquity as 
proving the authenticity of the books which they used as 
Christian Scriptures 2 . And the appeal was made at a 

cietate sacramenti confcederantur, id cipulorum suspecta fieri posset de 

evangelium Lucae ab initio edi'tionis gloriae studio si non assistat illi auc- 

suae stare quod cummaxime tuemur. toritas magistrorum, immo Christi, 

The clause in Johannem stabit auc- quae magistros Apostolos fecit. 

torem is commonly translated ' will 2 It is almost superfluous to give 

' shew it [the Apocalypse] to have any references to the quotations from 

'John for its author;' but it is evi- the acknowledged Books made by 

dent that such a translation is quite Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian ; 

out of place even if the words admit but many of the following are wor- 

of it. thy of notice on other grounds than 

1 Adv. Marc. I. c. Cf. ib. IV. i : merely as attesting the authenticity 

Constituimus inprimis evangelicum of the books, 

instrumentum"^. postolos auctores ha- (a) The Four Gospels: 

bere, quibus hoc munus evangelii Iren. c. Ifccr.ui. u. 8; Clem, 

promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit im- Strom, in. 13. 93; Tert. 

positum; si et Apostolicos, non ta- - adv. Marc. iv. 2. 

meiv solos sed cum Apostolis et post (/3) The Acts: 

Apostolos; quoniam praedicatio dis- Iren. in. i$. 1 ; Clem. Strom. 



302 



Canon of the Acknowledged Books [part 



chap. i. time when it was easy to try its worth. The links which 
connected them with the Apostolic age were few and 
known ; and if they had not been continuous it would 
have been easy to expose the break. But their appeal was 
never gainsayed ; and it still remains as a sure proof that 
no chasm separates the old and the new in the history of 
Christianity. Those great teachers are themselves an em- 
bodiment of the unity and progress of the faith. 

This will appear in yet another light when it is 
noticed that Clement and Irenaaus speak from opposite 
quarters of Christendom, and exactly from those in which 
we have found before no traces of the circulation of the 
Apostolic writings. They tell us what was the fulness of 
the doctrine on Scripture where the Churches had grown 
up in silence. They shew in what way the books of 
the New Testament w T ere the natural help of Christian 
men, as well as the ready armoury of Christian advo- 
cates. 

The evidence for the reception of the acknowledged 



The testimony 
in the same 
when its ori- 
ginal sources 
cannot be 
traced. 



v. 12. 83; Tert. adv. Marc. 
v. 2. 
(7) The Catholic Epistles : 

1 John: Iren. 111. 16.8; Clem. 
Strom. 11. 15. 66 ; Tert. adv. 
Prax. 25. 
1 Peter : Iren. IV. 9. 2 ; Clem. 
Paid. 1. 6. 44 ; Tert. c. 
Gnost. 12. Seep. 230, n. 2. 
(5) The Pauline Epistles: 

Romans: Iren. II. 22. 2; 
Clem. Strom. 11. 21. 134. 

1 Corinthians : Iren. I. 8. 2 ; 
Clem. Strom. 1. 1. 10. 

2 Corinthians : Iren. ill. 7. I ; 

Clem. Strom. 1. 1.4. 
Galatians : Iren. ill. 7* 2 1 

Clem. Strom. 1. 8. 41. 
Ephesians : Iren. 1. 8. 5 ; 

Clem. Strom, ill. 4. 28. 
Philippians : Iren. 1. 10. 1 ; 

Clem. Strom. 1. 11. 53. 
Colossians : Iren. ill. 14. 1; 



Clem. Strom. 1. 1. 15. 

1 Thessalonians : Iren. v.6. 1 ; 
Clem. Strom. 1. ir. 53. 

2 Thessalonians : Iren. V. 25. 

1 ; Clem. Strom, v. 3. 17. 

1 Timothy: Iren. 1. Pref . ; 
Clem. Strom. 11. 11. 52. 

2 Timothy : Iren. in. 14. 1 ; 
Clem. Strom. 111. 6. 53. 

Titus : Iren. 1. j 6. 3 ; Clem. 

Strom. I. 14. 59. 
The Epistle to Philemon is no- 
where quoted by Clement or 
Irenseus, but Tertullian, who 
examines the thirteen Pauline 
Epistles in the fifth book 
against Marcion, distinctly 
recognizes it. 
(e) The Apocalypse : 

Iren. v. 35. 2 ; Clem. Pcvd. II. 

10. 108; Tert. adv. Marc. 

in. 14. 






II.] at the Close of the Second Century. 303 

Books of the New Testament at the close of the second ciiai\ i. 
century is made more complete by the general character 
which was assigned to them. Special causes hindered the ^nditin- 

° t x eludes the no- 

universal circulation of the other books, but these w^ere **** °f a ^fi- 
nite collection 

regarded throughout the Church as parts of an organic f ^f red 
whole, correlative to the Old Testament, and of equal 
weight with it. They were considered to be not only 
Apostolic, but also authoritative. 'The Scriptures are 
' perfect,' Irenaeus says, 'inasmuch as they were uttered 
'by the Word of God and His Spirit 1 ;' and what he 
understands by the Scriptures is evident from the course 
of his arguments, in which he makes use of the books 
of the Old and New Testaments without distinction. 
'There could not,' he elsewhere argues, 'be either more 
'than four Gospels or fewer.' That number was pre- 
figured by types in the Mosaic ritual and by analogies in 
nature, so that all are ' vain and ignorant and daring 
' besides who set at naught the fundamental notion (IBia) 
'of the Gospel 2 .' Clement again recognizes generally a 
collection of ' the Scriptures of the Lord,' under the title 
of 'the Gospel and the Apostle 3 ;' and this collective title 
shews that the books were regarded as essentially one. 
But this unity was produced by 'the harmony of the 
'Law and the Prophets, and of the Apostles and the 
'Gospels in the Church 4 .' All alike proceeded from One 
Author : all were ' ratified by the authority of Almighty 
I Power 5 .' Tertullian marks the introduction of the phrase 
iNew Testament' as applied to the Evangelic Scriptures. 
yS, 9 he says, ' I shall not clear up this point by investi- 
gations of the Old Scripture, I will take the proof of 



1 Iren. c. Hcer. II. 28. 2: Scripturae yeXtov re o\it6o-to\os KeXevovat. 
quidem perfects sunt, quippe a Ver- Elsewhere Clement uses the plural 
bo Dei et Spiritu ejus dictae. airoardXoi. 

2 Iren. c. Hcer. lit. 11. 8 sq. 4 Strom. VI. 11. 88. 

3 Strom, vti. 3. 14: (T0as yap 5 Strom. IV. 1.2. 
avrovs alxfJ-oXwrl^eiv^.Tb re evay- 



304 Canon of the Acknowledged Boohs. [part ii. 



CHAP. I. 



The testimony 
of the chief 
Fathers sup- 
pr>rted by col- 
lateral evi- 
dence. 



' our interpretation from the New Testament... For behold 
' both in the Gospels and in the Apostles I observe a 
'visible and an invisible God... 1 / 

The clear testimony of Irenseus, Clement, and Ter- 
tullian — clear because their writings are of considerable 
extent — finds complete support not only in the fragments 
of earlier Fathers, but also in smaller contemporary 
works. Athenagoras at Athens and Theophilus at Antioch 
make use of the same books generally, and treat them 
with the same respect 2 . And from the close of the 
second century, with the single exception of the Apo- 
calypse, the books thus acknowledged were always received 
without doubt until subjective criticism ventured to set 
aside the evidence of antiquity 3 . 

In the next chapter I shall examine how far the 
disputed books were recognized in the several branches 
of the Christian Church, and whether any explanation 
can be offered for their partial reception. 



1 Adv. Prax. 15 : Si hunc articu- 
lum quaestionibus Scripturae Veteris 
non expediam, de Novo Testamento 
sum am confirmationem nostras in- 
terpretations, ne quodcumque in 
Eilium reputo in Patrem proinde 
defendas. Ecce enim et in Evan- 
geliis et in Apostolis visibilem et 
invisibilem Deum deprehendo, sub 
manifesta et personal! d5stinctione 
conditionis utriusque. id. c. 20: 
totum instrumentum utriusque Tes- 
tamenti ... Be Pudic. 1 : Pudicitia 
. . . trahit. . . disciplinam per instru- 
mentum praedicationis et censuram 
per judicia ex utroque. Testamento... 
Comp. p. 220 and notes. 

2 Athenagoras quotes the Gospels 
of St Matthew and St John, and the 



Epistles of St Paul to the Romans, 
1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians ; 
he refers perhaps also to the first 
Epistle to Timothy and to the Apo- 
calypse. Theophilus in his books to 
Autolycus refers to the Gospels of 
St Matthew, St Luke (?), and St 
John ; to the Epistles of St Paul to 
the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 
Ephesians, Phiiippians, Colossians, 
1 Timothy, Titus ; to the first Epi- 
stle of St Peter (?) ; and to the Apo- 
calypse (Euseb. H. E. iv. 24). 

3 The assaults of the Manichees 
on the books of the New Testament 
cannot be considered an exception 
to the truth of this statement. Some- 
thing will be said about them here- 
after. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCHES TO THE DISPUTED 
BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum CatKolicarum quamplurium auctoritatem 
[indagator solertissimws] sequatur. 

A uGcsTixrs. 



S 



EVEN books of the New Testament, as is well known, chap, ii 

i i J • x. AT- r\ "J i The question 

have been received into the Canon on evidence less f the disputed 



complete than that by which the others are supported 1 , delidedus- 
In the controversy which has been raised about their onca u ' 
claims to Apostolic authority much stress has been laid 
on their internal character. But such a method of rea- 
soning is commonly inconclusive, and inferences are drawn 
on both sides with equal confidence. In every instance 
the result will be influenced by preconceived notions of 
the state of the early Church, and it is possible that an 
original source of information may be disparaged because 
it is independent. History must deliver its full testimony 
before internal criticism can find its proper use. And 
here the real question to be answered in the case of the 
disputed books is not Why we receive them? but Why 
should we not receive them? The general agreement of 
the Church in the fourth century is an antecedent proof 
of their claims ; and it remains to be seen whether it is 
set aside by the more uncertain, and fragmentary evi- 

1 The Epistles of James, Jude, i Peter, a and 3 John, to the Hebrews, 
and the Apocalypse. 

C. X 



306 The Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 

chap. ii. dence of earlier generations. If on the contrary it can be 
proved that the books were known from the first though 
not known universally ; if any explanation can be given 
of their limited circulation ; if it can be shewn that they 
were more generally received as they were more widely 
known : then it will appear that history has decided the 
matter ; and this decision of history will be conclusive. 
The accept- The idea of forming the disputed books into a Deutero- 

anceofa J^ 

Deutero-canon canon of the New Testament (advocated by many Soman 

no solution of m . N J J 

the problem. Catholics in spite of the Council ol Trent, and by many 
of the early reformers 1 ), though it appears plausible at 
first sight, is evidently either a mere confession that the 
question is incapable of solution, or a re- statement of it 
in other words. The second Epistle of St Peter is either 
an authentic work of the Apostle or a forgery ; for in this 
case there can be do mean. And the Epistles of St 
James and St Jude and that to the Hebrews, if they are 
genuine, are Apostolic at least in the same sense as the 
Gospels of St Mark and St Luke and the Acts of the 
Apostles 2 . It involves a manifest confusion of ideas to 
compensate for a deficiency of historical proof by a lower 
standard of Canonicity. The extent of the divine au- 
thority of a book cannot be made to vary with the com- 
pleteness of the proof of its genuineness. The genuine- 
ness must be admitted before the authority can have any 

1 Even Augustine appears to have that such a statement can rest on 

favoured this view: Tenebit igitur no logical basis. 
. [Scripturaruin indagator] hunc mo- 2 I do not by any means intend to 

dum in Scripturis Canonicis ut eas assert that every work of an Apostle 

quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ec- or Apostolic writer as such would 

clesiis Catholicis prteponat iis quas have formed part of the Canon ; in- 

qusedarn non accipiunt ; in iis vero deed I believe that many Apostolic 

quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus writings may have been lost when 

prseponat eas quas plures graviores- they had wrought their purpose, but 

que accipiunt iis quas pauciores mi- that these books have received the 

norisque auctoritatis Ecclesise tenent recognition of the Church in such a 

(De Doctr. Chr. n. 12). In spite of manner that if genuine they must 

the authority however it is clear be Canonical. 



II.] The Testimony of the Churches. 307 

positive value, which from its nature cannot admit of chap. ir. 
degrees ; and till the genuineness be established the au- 
thority remains in abeyance. 4 

The evidence which has been collected hitherto for A summary 

-... n t ill i i • of the evidence 

the Apostolicity ot the disputed books may be brietiy up to this 

summed up as follows. The Epistle to the Hebrews is The Epist i e t0 

certainly referred to by Clement of Rome, and probably 

by Justin Martyr ; it is contained in the Peshito, though 

probably the version was made by a separate translator ; 

but it is omitted in the fragmentary Canon of Muratori, 

and, as it appears, was wanting also in the Old Latin 

version 1 . Except the opinion of Tertullian, which has 

been mentioned by anticipation,. nothing has been found 

tending to determine its authorship. The Epistle of St The Epistles of 

James is referred to by Hennas and probably by Clement, 

and is included in the Peshito (according to some copies 

as the work of St James the Elder) ; but it is not 

found in the Muratorian Canon, nor in the Old Latin 2 . 

The Epistle of St Jude and probably the two • shorter Jude) 

Epistles of St John are supported by the authority of 2 and 3 John * 

the Muratorian Canon and of the Old Latin version ; 

but they are not found in the Peshito 3 . The Apocalypse r/^Apcca- 

is distinctly mentioned by Justin as the work of the >pbe 

Apostle John, and Papias and Melito bear witness to its 

authority: it is included in the Muratorian Canon, but 

not in the Peshito 41 . No certain trace has yet been found 

of the second Epistle of St Peter 5 . 

From this general summary it will be seen that up to According to 
:his time the Epistle of St James and that to the Hebrews 
-est principally on the authority of the Eastern (Syrian) 
Church : the second and third Epistles of St John and the 

1 Cf. pp. 44, 147, 191, 206 n. 2, 3 Cf. pp. 190, 212, 225. 

232. 4 Cf. pp. 65, 145, ior, 104, 212. 



2 Cf. pp. 44, 175, 191, 212, 225. 5 Cf. pp. 194 n. 5, 



308 



The Disputed Books of the . Canon. [part 



chap. II. 



Epistle of St Jude on that of the Western Church : the 
Apocalypse on that of the Church of Asia Minor. It re- 
mains to inquire how far these lines of evidence are 
extended and confirmed in the great divisions of the 
Church up to the close of the third century. 



The Alexandrine Church. 



The imporU 
a me of the 
witness of the 
A lex.indrine 
Church, 



Clement. 

c. 165 — 220 A.D 



The testimony of the Alexandrine Church, as has been 
noticed already, is of the utmost importance, owing to the 
natural advantages of its position and the conspicuous 
eminence of its great teachers during the third century. 
Never perhaps have two such men as Clement and Origen 
contributed in successive generations to build up a Chris- 
tian Church in wisdom and humility. No two fathers ever 
did more to vindicate the essential harmony of Christian 
truth with the lessons of history and the experience of 
men; and in spite of their many faults and exaggerations, 
perhaps no influence on the whole has been less productive 
of evil 1 . 

No catalogue of the Books of the New Testament 
' occurs in the writings of Clement ; but Eusebius has given 
a summary of his ' Hypotyposes ' or 'Outlines' which 
serves in some measure to supply the defect 2 . ' Clement 
'in his Outlines, to speak generally, has given concise 
'explanations of all the Canonical Scriptures {iraar}^ t//? 
' ivBtaOtjKov ypacfrrjs;) without omitting the disputed books : 
* I mean the Epistle of Jude and the remaining Catholic 
1 Epistles, as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the so- 
' called Revelation of Peter. And moreover he says that 



1 Athenagoras is sometimes classed 
with the Alexandrine school, but his 
writings contain no clear references 
to any of the disputed books. Cf. 
Lardner, Pt. II. c. 18, § 12 ; supr. 



p. 304, n. 2. 

2 The testimony of Pantsenus (?) 
to the Epistle to the Hebrews as 
a work of St Paul is noticed on the 
following page. 



II.] Clement of Alexandria. 309 

'the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul's, but that it was chap il 
' written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew dialect, and that 
'Luke having* carefully (^lXotl/jlco^) translated it published 
1 it for the use of the Greeks. And that it is owing to the 
'fact that he translated it that the complexion (xP^ Ta ) 
1 of this Epistle and that of the Acts is found to be the 
'same. Further he remarks that it is natural that the 
'phrase Paul an Apostle does not occur in the superscrip- 
' tion, for in writing to Hebrews, who had conceived a pre- 
judice against him and suspected him, he was very wise 
'in not repelling them at the beginning by affixing his 
' name. And then a little further on he (Clement) adds : 
'And as the blessed presbyter (? Pantsenus) before now 
' used to say, since the Lord, as being the Apostle of the Hebr. m. i. 
'Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul through his 
' modesty, inasmuch as he was sent to the Gentiles, does 
'not inscribe himself Apostle of the Hebrews, both on 
' account of the honour due to the Lord, and because it 
' was a work of supererogation that he addressed an Epistle 
'to the Hebrews also (etc irepiovcria^ teal tols 'Efipaioi? 
' eiriaTeWeuv) since he w^as herald and Apostle of the 
'Gentiles 1 .' The testimony to the Pauline origin of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews which is contained in this passage to the Epistle 

1 ,. , to the hebrews: 

is evidently of the greatest value. There can be little 
doubt that the 'blessed presbyter' was Pantsenus ; and 
thus the tradition is carried up almost to the Apostolic 
age. With regard to the other disputed books, the words g^^ 0101 * 
of Eusebius imply some distinction between ' the Epistle 
of Jude and the Catholic Epistles,' and ' the Epistle of 
Barnabas and the Kevelation of Peter.' But the whole 
statement is very loosely worded, and its true meaning 
must be sought by comparison with other evidence. Fortu- 
nately this is not wanting. Photiiis after commenting very U. sse a.* 

1 Euseb. H. E.xi. 14. 



310 The Disputed Boohs of the Canon. [part 

chap. ii. severely on the doctrinal character of the Outlines adds ; 
' Now the whole scope of the book consists in giving as it 
' were interpretations of Genesis, of Exodus, of the Psalms ; 
6 of the Epistles of St Paul, and of the Catholic Epistles, 
'and of EcclesiasticusV The last clause is very obscure; 
but whatever may be meant by it, it is evident that the 
detailed enumeration is most imperfect, for the Outlines 
certainly contained notes on the four Gospels. But if 
Clement had distinctly rejected any book which Photius 
held to be Canonical, ox treated any Apocryphal book as 
part of Holy Scripture, it is likely that he would have 
mentioned the fact; and thus negatively his testimony 
modifies that of Eusebius, at least so far as that seems to 
imply that Clement treated the Epistle of Barnabas and 
the Revelation of Peter as Canonical. A third account of 
the Outlines further limits the statements of Eusebius and 
t e. 575 a.d. Photius. Cassiodorus, the chief minister of Theodoric, in 
his ' Introduction to the reading of Holy Scripture ' says : 
' Clement of Alexandria a presbyter, who is also called 
' Stromateus, has made some comments on the Canonical 
' Epistles, that is to say on the first Epistle of St Peter, the 
' first and second of St John, and the Epistle of St James, 
'in pure and elegant language. Many things which he 
1 has said in them shew refinement, but some a want of 
' caution ; and we have caused his comments to be ren- 
' dered into Latin, so that by the omission of some trifling 
'details which might cause offence his teaching may be 
c imbibed with greater security 2 .' There can be little doubt 

1 Phot. Cod. 109. Bunsen, Anal. book of Ecclesiasticus in such a con- 

Ante-Nic.l. p. 165. For /cat rCov Ka0o- nexion, however perplexing, is not 

\lkQv ko! rod eKKKriviavTiKov (Bekk. without parallel. Cf. pp. 191 f., 337. 

€KK*kr](ria(rTov) Bunsen prints /cat rCov 2 The passages are printed at 

kclO. /cat to KaddXov to/jlov 'E/c- length by Bunsen, ib. pp. 323 sqq. ; 

AcX^o'tacrrt/coi}. But surely 6 kolOo- and in the editions of Clement. 

Xov rofjLos 'EkkXtjo-iclo-tikos is a mar- Klotz, IV. pp. 52 sqq. 
vellous phrase. The reference to the 



II.] Clement of Alexandria. 311 

that the Latin Adumbrationes which are given in the chap. ii. 
editions of Clement are the notes of which Cassiodorus 
speaks. There is however one discrepancy between the 
description and the Adumbrationes. These are written on 
the first Epistle of St Peter, the Epistle of St Jude (not St 
James), and the first two Epistles of St John; but in' 
general character they answer to the idea which might be 
formed of the work, and Cassiodorus himself is bv no 
means so accurate a writer that his testimony should be 
decisive 1 . The Adumbrationes contain numerous refer- 
ences to Scripture, and expressly assign the Epistle to the 
Hebrews to St Paul 2 . The scattered testimonies which 
are gathered from the text of Clement's extant works 
recognize the same books. He makes several quotations 
from the Epistle to the Hebrews as St Paul's 3 , from the 
Epistle of St Jude 4 , and one among man}' others from the 
first Epistle of St John which implies the existence of a 
second 5 ; while he uses the Apocalypse frequently, assign- 
ing it to the Apostle St John 6 ; but he nowhere makes 
any reference to the Epistle of St James 7 . There can 
then be little doubt that the reading in Cassiodorus is 

false, and that c Jude' should be substituted for 'James;' 

* 

and thus the different lines of evidence are found to 
coincide exactly. Clement, it appears, recognized as Ca- 
nonical all the books. of the New Testament except the 
Epistle of St James, the second Epistle of St Peter, and 

3 It may be added that Cassiodo- oXaai. . .irpo^-qriKu's 'lovdav ev rrj in- 

rus omits Jude in his list of the aroXy elprjKe'vai. 
books of the New Testament. See 5 Strom. IL 15.66: (fxtlvercude kcl! 

App. D. 'ludvvrjs h rfj fid^ovi £iri(TTo\fj r&s 

2 But it is added that it was trans- dtacpopds t&v a/LiapTiwv eKdiddaKuv. 
lated by St Luke : Lucas quoque et Comp. p. 336, n. 3. 

Actus Apostolorum stylo exsecutus 6 Peed. II. 12. 119. Strom. VI. 13. 

agnoscitur et Pauli ad Hebraeos in- 107 : us (prjaiv ev rrj diroKaXu-J/ei 6 

terpretatus epistolam. Cf. p. 309. 'Iwdvurjs. 

3 Clem. Alex. Strom. VI. 8. 62 : 7 The instances commonly quoted. 
Tlav\os...ToU 'E(3paiois ypd<pui>. are rightly set aside by Lardner, 11. 

4 Strom, ni. 2. 11: em rovruv 22, §8. 



312 



The Disputed Books of the Canon. 



[part 



CHAP. II. 



OHIGEN. 
186 — 253 A.D. 



How Euse- 
bius records 
his evidence 
in reference 
to the Gos- 
pels ; 



(he Apostolic 
Epistles ; 



the third Epistle of St John. And his silence as to these 
can prove no more than that he was unacquainted with 
them 1 . 

Origen completed nobly the work which Clement 
began. During a long life of labour and suffering he 
learnt more fully than any one who went before him the 
depth and wisdom of the Holy Scriptures ; and his testi- 
mony to their divine claims is proportionately more com- 
plete and systematic. Eusebius has collected the chief 
passages in which he speaks on the subject of the Canon, 
and though much that he says refers to the Acknowledged 
Books, his evidence is too important to be omitted. Like 
the Fathers who preceded him, he professes only to repeat 
the teaching which he had received. ' In* the first book 
' of his Commentaries on Matthew/ Eusebius writes, ' pre- 
* serving the rule of the Church, he testifies that he knows 
' only four Gospels, writing to this effect: I have learnt. by 
' tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are 
' uncontroverted in the Church of God spread under 
'heaven, that that according to Matthew, who was once 
' a publican but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, 
'was written first;... that according to Mark second;... that 
'according to Luke third;... that according to John last 
< of all 2 / 

'The same writer,' Eusebius continues, 'in the fifth 
'book of his Commentaries on the Gospel of John says 
'this of the Epistles of the Apostles: Now he who was 
' made fit to be a minister of the neiu covenant, not of the 
'letter but of the spirit, Paul, who fully preached the 



1 Clement's use of the writings of 
the sub-apostolic Fathers (Clement 
of Rome, Hermas, Barnabas) and of 
certain Apocryphal books (the Go- 
spels according to the Hebrews and 
the Egyptians, the Preaching and 
the Apocalypse of Peter, the Tradi- 



tions of Mathias) will be considered 
in App. B. It is enough to notice 
that there is no evidence to shew 
that he attributed to them a decisive 
authority, as he did to the writings 
of the Apostles in the strictest sense. 
2 Euseb. H. E. vi. 25. 



il] Origen. 313 

'Gospel from Jerusalem round about as far as Illyrieum, chap. □ 
'did not even write to all the Churches which he taught, 
'and sent moreover but few lines (ari^ovs) to those to 
■ which he wrote. Peter again, on whom the Church of 
'Christ is built against which the gates of hell shall not 
'prevail) has left behind one Epistle generally acknow- 
ledged; perhaps also a second, for it is a disputed ques- 
' tion. Why need I speak about him who reclined upon 
' the breast of Jesus. John, who has left behind a single 
' Gospel, though he confesses that he could make so many 
'as not even the world could contain! He wrote moreover John xxi. 25. 
'the Apocalypse, having been commanded to keep silence. iypse^° ca " 
' and not to write the voices of the seven thunders. He Apoc ' x * 4 ' 
' has left behind also one Epistle of very few lines : per- 
'haps too a second and third; for all do not allow that 
' these are genuine ; nevertheless both together do not 
' contain a hundred lines/ 

'In addition to these statements |"Ori°'en~j thus dis- 'H? pi 2 tb 

L o -> to the He- 

' cusses the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies brews - 
'upon it: Every one who is competent to judge of differ- 
' ences of diction (cfrpdo-ecov) would acknowledge that the 
' style (xapafc-rjp rf}s Xe^eco?) of the Epistle entitled to the 
'Hebrews does not exhibit the Apostle's rudeness and 
[simplicity in speech (to iv Xoya ISuarucav), though he 
'acknowledged himself to be simple -in- his speech, that is 
'in his diction (777 cf>pdaec), but it is more truly Greek in 
'its composition (avvOeaeu rifc Xe^ew?). And again, that 
'the thoughts (vojjpLara) of the Epistle are wonderful, and 
'not second to the acknowledged writings of the Apostle, 
'every one who pays attention to the reading of the 
' Apostle's works would also grant to be true. And after 
'other remarks he adds: If I were to express my own 
'opinion I should say that the thoughts are the Apostle 1 
'but the diction and composition that of some one who 



314 



The Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 



CHAP. II. 



The testimo- 
nies in the 
liomilies. 



'recorded from memory the Apostle's teaching, and as it 
' were illustrated with a brief Commentary the sayings of 
'his master {a r Ko\xv f Y]iiovevaavTo^...K(xi wairepel a^oXco- 
' ypacfirjcravTos). If then any Church hold this Epistle to 
■ be Paul's, we cannot find fault with it for so doing (ei5So- 

* KL/jL€iTco teal eirl TovTcp) ; for it was not without good 
' reason [ovk elfcfj) that the men of old time have handed 
' it dowm as Paul's. But who it was who wrote the Epistle 

* God only knows certainly. The account (laTopta) which 
' has reached us is [manifold,] some saying that Clement 
' who became Bishop of Rome wrote it, while others assign 
' it to Luke the author of the Gospel and the Acts.' 

Much has been, written since upon the subject with 
which Origen deals thus wisely, but not one step has been 
surely made bej^ond the limit which he fixes. Others 
have expounded the arguments on which he touches, but 
without adding anything to their real force. New con- 
jectures have been made, more groundless than those 
which he mentions, but his practical conclusion remains 
unshaken. The Epistle though not St Paul's in the strict- 
est sense is eminently Pauline; and from the time of 
Origen it was generally received as St Paul's in this 
wider view of authorship by the Alexandrine Church, and 
thence in the fourth century by the great scholars of the 
West. 

There still remain two passages in Rufinus' version 1 
of the Homilies on Genesis and Joshua in which we find 
an incidental enumeration of the different authors and 
books of the New Testament. It is however impossible 
to insist on these as of primary authority. Rufinus, as is 
well known, was not content to render the simple words 
of Origen, but sought in several points to bring them into 

1 There can be no. doubt that he was the author of it. Cf. Huet, Origen. 

III. 2. 



II.] Origen. 315 

harmony with the current belief; and the comparison of cn.vp. u. 
some fragments of the Greek text of one of the Homilies 
with his rendering of it shews clearly that he has allowed 
himself in these the same licence as in his other trans- 
lations 1 . Still there is something of Orio-en's manner 
throughout the pieces; and in his popular writings he 
quotes parts of the disputed books without hesitation. 

The first passage is contained in a spiritual explana- The passage 

• - - ■, • ' n i • -. from a Ho- 

tion~ of the narrative concerning the wells which wererciiyon 

. Gen. xxvi. 

opened by Isaac after the Philistines had stopped them, *8sqq. 
and the new wells which he made. Moses, Origen tells 
us, was one of the servants of Abraham who first opened 
the fountain of the Law. Such too were David and the 
Prophets. But the Jews- closed up those sources of life, 
the scriptures of the Old Testament, with earthly thoughts ; 
and when the antitype of Isaac had sought to lay them 
open, the Philistines strove with him. ' So then he dug 
' new wells ; and so did his servants. Isaac's servants were 
' Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John : his servants are Peter, 
c James, and Jude : his servant also is the Apostle Paul ; 
' who all dig wells of the New Testament. But those who 
'mind earthly things strive ever for these also, and suffer 
'not the new to be formed, nor the old to be cleansed. 
1 They gainsay the sources opened in the Gospel : they 
'oppose those opened by the Apostles' (Evangelicis puteis 
contradicunt : Apostolicis adversantur). 

The last quotation which I shall make is equally cha- ^aTon H ° 
tract eristic of Origen's style. He has been speaking of the Josilua - 
walls of Jericho which fell down before the blasts of the 
trumpets of the priests. c So too,' he says 3 , 'our Lord, 

1 For instance, he adds such (Horn, in Gen. n. 2). 

phrases as Sanctus Apostolus, and 2 Horn, in Gen. xin. 2. A differ- 

translates cos ovx a,yta t<x MajiWws ent explanation of the wells is given 

(TvyypdfMfjLaTa by Scripta Mosis ni- Select^ in Gtn, vm. p. 77 (ed. Lomm.). 

hil in se divinse sapientiae nihilque :i Horn, in Jos. Vir. 1. 
operis sancti Spiritus continere 



316 



The Disputed Books of the Canon. 



[PAET 



chap. ii. < whose advent was typified by the son of Nun, when he 
'came sent his Apostles as priests bearing well-wrought 
' (ductiles) trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly 
' trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Lube and John, each 
* gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter 
'moreover sounds loudly on the twofold 1 trumpet of his 
' Epistles : and so also James and Jude. Still the number 
' is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in 
' his Epistles and Apocalypse ; and Luke while describing 
' the acts of the Apostles. Lastly however came he who 
' said : / think that God hath set forth us Apostles last of 
' all, and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his 
'Epistles threw down even to the ground the walls of 
i Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and 
'the doctrines of philosophers.' 
isolated testi- Such appears to have been Origen's popular teaching 

monies to the L L < . . . 

several Books on the Canon, in discourses which aimed at spiritual in- 

%n the Greeic 7 L t 

struction rather than at critical accuracy ; and it remains 
to be seen how far these general outlines are filled up in 
detail by special testimonies. The first place is naturally 
due to references contained in the Greek text of his 
writings ; and it is indeed on these only that absolute 
reliance can be placed. It is evident then from this kind 
of evidence, no less than from all other, that like Clement 
he received the Apocalypse as an undoubted work of the 
Apostle St John 2 . Like Clement also he quotes the 
Epistle of St Jude several times, and expressly as the 
work of ' the Lord's brother ;' but he implies in one place 
the existence of doubts as to its authority 3 . In addition 



Text 



The Apoca- 
lypse. 



t Jude. 



1 Duabus tubis. One Manuscript 
has a very remarkable reading, ex 
tr'tbus. 

2 Comm. in Joan. T. I. T4 : 4>-qalv 
ovv h rv, airoKaXiixpei 6 rod Ze(3edaLov 

3 Comm. in Matt. T. x. 17 (Matt. 



xiii. 55, 56) : kclI 'lovdas '4ypa\pev 
eiTL(TTo\y]v dXiydo-TLXOv/Aev TreTrXrjpoj- 
ixh-qv dt ttjs ovpavlov x^P LT0S eppu- 
lihuv \bywv...id. T. XVH. 30: el Zh 
/cat rrjv 'IotfSa irpSaoiTd tls inuro- 
Xtjv... 



ii.] Origen. 317 

to this he refers to the 'Epistle in circulation under the chap. ii. 
'name of James 1 ;' but he nowhere I believe either quotes Sf James. 
or mentions the second Epistle of St Peter 2 , or the two 2 Peter, 
shorter Epistles of St John. On the contrary, he quotes 2 and 3 John, 
the Epistle of Peter z and the Epistle of John* in such a . 
manner as at least to shew that the other Epistles were 
not familiarly known. 

The Latin version of the Homilies supplies in part in the Latin 

, x x . Version. 

what is wanting in the Greek Commentaries. It contains 
several distinct quotations of the second Epistle of St 2 Peter. 
Peter 5 , and of the Epistle of St James, who is described stjAjas. 
in one place as 'the brother of the Lord/ but generally 
only as 'the Apostle 6 ;' but even in this there is no refer- 
ence to the shorter Epistles of St John. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews is quoted continually both The Epistle to 

tlie Hebrews 

in the Greek and in the Latin text, sometimes as the 
work of St Paul, sometimes as the work of the Apostle, 
and sometimes without any special designation 7 . 



1 Coram, in Joan. T. xix. 6 : Cos 
eV rrj (pepo/JLewn 'laKufiov iiTLcrroXfj 
aveyvoj /lev. Cf. T. xx. to. He once 
quotes it without further remark : 
cos irapa 'Ia/cc6/3^, Select, in Ps. xxx. 
T. Xii. p. 129. It may be concluded 
from one passage in his Commenta- 
ries on St Matthew (xiii. 55, 56), 
in which he notices that the St Jude 
there mentioned was the author of 
the Epistle whicli bore his name, and 
St James the one to whom St Paul 
refers in Gal. i. 19, that he was not 
inclined to believe that the Epistle 
of St James was written by the 
Lord's brother. 

2 It is impossible to insist confi- 
dently on the doubtful reading. 
Comm. in Matt. T. xv. 1 7 : dirb rrjs 
Herpov irpdorns €7ricrTo\rjs. TLerpov 
is apparently omitted in the Manu- 
scripts . 

3 Select, in Ps. hi. (T. XI. 420) : 
Kara t& \eyojxeva kv rfj na6o\iKy 



€Tri<TTo\rj irapa rep Herpy. Cf. Comm. 
in Joan. T. VI. t8. 

4 Comm. in Matt, T. xvn. 19 : to 
d,7r6 rod 'looavvov KadoXiKrjs €ttl- 
(TtoXtjs. ib. T. XV. 31 : 7/ 'looavvov 
eTTLO-roXr). Yet cf. p. 319, n. 5. 

5 Horn, in Levit. iv. 4 : Petrus 
dixit (2 Pet. i. 4). Cf. Comm. in 
Rom, iv. 9. Horn, in Num. xiii. 8 : 
ut ait quodam in loco scriptura 
(2 Pet. ii. 16). Cf. Horn, xviii. s. f. 
Thus also de Princ. 11. 5.3: Petrus 
in prima epistola... 

6 Comm. in Rom. TV. 8 ; James 
vi. 4. 

7 The passage quoted by Euse- 
bius from a Homily on the He- 
brews gives probably Origen's ma- 
ture judgment on the authorship of 
the Epistle. In the earlier letter to 
Afriqanus he says, after quoting 
Hebr. xi. 37: &W eUos riva 6\i(36- 
fievov airb rrjs els ravra dirodei^ecos 
o~vyxpr)cra<jdai r<£ ^ov\ev[xaTL rCov 



318 



The Disputed Books of the Canon. [paet 



chap. II. 

Summary of 
Origen's opi~ 
nion on the 
New Testa- 
ment Canon 



as a whole. 



On the whole then there can be little doubt as to 
Origen's judgment on the New Testament Canon. He 
was acquainted with all the books which are received at 
present, and received as Apostolic all those which were 
recognized by Clement. The others he used, but with a 
certain reserve and hesitation, arising from a want of in- 
formation as to their history, rather than from any positive 
grounds of suspicion 1 . 

Clement divided the Christian books into two great 
divisions, the Gospel and the Apostle or the Apostles. Origen 
repeats the same classification 2 ; but he also advanced a 
step further, and found that these were united in one 
whole as 'Divine Scriptures of the New Testament 3 ,' 
written by the same Spirit as those before Christ's coming 4 , 



aOerovvTcov rrjv eirio~To\riv il s ouUav\cp 
yeypajULfjLevTjv' irpbs ov dXKuv \6ycov 
/car Iblav xpvfcp-^ eiS dirbbul~iv rod 
eivai Ilai/Xou ttjv eTnaroXrju (T. XVII. 
p. 31). Though the date of this 
letter is probably A.D. 240, the Ho- 
milies were not written till after 245. 

1 Origen's quotations from the 
sub-apostolic Fathers (Clement of 
Kome, Hennas, Barnabas) and Apo- 
cryphal Books (the Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews, the Preaching 
of Peter, the Acts of Paul) will be 
noticed in App. B. 

One famous passage in which Ori- 
gen contrasts the Canonical Gospels 
with others deserves to be quoted. 
In commenting on Luke i. 1 he says 
' The phrase have taken in hand irn- 
' plies a tacit accusation of those 
' who rushed hastily to write Gospels 
' without the grace of the Holy 
' Spirit. Matthew and Mark and 
' Luke and John did not take in 
' hand to write their Gospels, but 
' wrote them being full of the Holy 

' Spirit The Church has four 

' Gospels, heresies very many, of 
'which one is entitled according to 
* the Egyptians, another according to 
1 the twelve Apostles Four Gospels 



' only are approved, out of which we 
' must bring forth points of teaching 
'under the person of our Lord and 
' Saviour. There is I know a 
' Gospel which is called according to 
' Thomas, and [one] according to Ma- 
'Ihias; and there are many others 
' which we read, lest we should seem 
' to be unacquainted with any point 
r for the sake of those who think they 
1 possess some valuable knowledge if 
'they are acquainted with them. 
'But in all these we approve no- 
' thing else but that which the Church 
' approves, that is, four Gospels only 
1 as proper to be received' (Horn. I. 
in Luc). The passage may stand 
as a complete explanation of his 
judgment and his practice. 

2 Clem. Strom, vn. 3. J 4 ; v. 5. 
31; vi. 2. 88. Orig. Horn, in Jerem. 
xxi. f. See p. 303. 

3 Be Princip. iv. r (Philoc. c. 1) : 
...€K t(ov ireirio-TeviJLiviijv r\p2v eZVcu 
delojv ypacpQv tt}s re XeyopLevvs 7ra- 
Xaids 5ia0r)K7)S Kal rrjs KaXovpifrrjs 
Kaivrjs... 

4 De Princip. IV. 16: ov fxbvov Ik 
wept tCjv irpb rrjs irapovalas ravra to 
irvevpia LpKOvopnaev, dXX' are to avro 
Tvyxwov nal dirb tgv £vbs 6eov, to 



ii.] Dionysius of Alexandria. 319 

and giving a testimony by which every word should be chap, il 
established 1 . 

Amono* thernost distinguished scholars of Origen was dh«i 
Dionysius, who was promoted to the presidency of the 
Catechetical School about the year 231 A.D., and after- 248 a.i>. 
wards was chosen Bishop of Alexandria. During an active 
and troubled episcopate he maintained an intimate com- 
munication with Eome, Asia Minor, and Palestine ; and 
in one place (referring to the schism of Novatus) he ex- 
presses his joy at 'the unity and love everywhere preva- 
lent in all the districts of Syria, in Arabia, Mesopotamia, 
'Pontus, and Bithvnia,' and f in all the churches of the 
'East 2 / Important fragments of. his letters still remain, 
which contain numerous references to the New Testament ; 
and among other quotations he makes use of the Epistle The Epistle to 

L ? „ r the Hebrews. 

to the Hebrews as St Paul's 3 , of the Epistle of St James , 

and in his remarks on the Apocalypse mentions ■ the 2 ^ nd 3 John. 

'second and third Epistles circulated as works of John' in 

such a way as to imply that he was inclined to receive 

them as authentic 5 . His criticism on the Apocalypse has ^Apocm-. 

6(xolov kcll eVt tCjp evayyeXiuv ire- d\\' ovde ev rfj devrepa (fyepopLevn 

TroirjKe kclI irl tCcv airo<jTo\uv. Comp. 'luavvov kcll Tplrr) kclltol ^pax^LXLS 

Coram, in Joh. I. 15. ovaais iirLcrroXaTs 6 "Icodvp-rjs 6vou.a<jTL 

1 Horn, in Jerem. I. The wel 1 - irpoKeLraL d\\' avuvvpLus 6 TrpeafivTe- 
known reference of Origen to the pos yeypairraL. Though the context 
Shepherd of Hermas (Comm. in Horn. implies that he held these letters to 
xvi. 14. Cf. Comm. in Matt. T. xiv. be St John's, yet he afterwards 
21) evidently expresses a private speaks of ' his Epistle,' as if he had 
opinion on the book, and by no written but one (7; iirLo-ToXr}, 17 Ma- 
cleans places it on an equality with doXLKi] iirLo-ToXrj). This may serve 
the Canon cal Scriptures. Cf. App.B. to explain the similar usage of Ori- 

2 Euseb. H. E. vi. 46; VII. 4, 5. gen. Cf. p. 317. This mode of 

3 Dion. ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 41: speaking is most remarkably illus- 
ttju apira.y~i]v tCcv vTrapxbvTLov opLoiccs trated in the records of the seventh 
kKelvoLS oh kcll UavXos ipLCLpTvpTjae Council of Carthage (A. r D. 256, 
fiera x a P& s ^pocreoe^avro. Cf. Hebr. Eouth, Hell. Sacr. III. p. 130), where 
x. 34. the second Epistle of St John is thus 

4 Comm. in Luc. xxil. (Gallandi, quoted: Ioannes Apostolus in epi>- 
Bibl. Pp. xiv. App. p. 117. Cf. tola sua posuit dicens (2 John 10, n^. 
Proleg. v.) 6 yap 6ebs, (prjo-lf, airei- In the fifth Council (Routh, p. in) 
pacrros io-TL kclkQv. James i. 1 3. the first Epistle is quoted in the 

f Dion. ap. Euseb. H. E. vn. 25 : same words. 



320 The Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 

chap. ii. been already noticed. He had weighed the objections 
which were brought against it, and found them insufficient 
to overthrow its Canonicity 1 , though he believed that it 
was not the work of the Apostle, and admitted that it was 
full of difficulties which he was unable to explain. ' I will 
'not deny/ he saj^s, 'that the author of the Apocalypse 
'was named John, for I fully allow (avvacvoo) that it is 
'the work of some holy and inspired man (d<ylov...TLvbs 
' Kal 6eo7rvev(TTov) ; but I should not easily concur in the 
' belief that this John was the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, 
'the brother of James, who wrote the Gospel and the 
' Catholic Epistle/ And he then adds the grounds of his 
opinion : ' for I conclude from a comparison of the cha- 
' racter of the writings, and from the form of the language, 
'and the general construction of the book [of the Revela- 
'tion] that [the John there mentioned] is not the same 2 / 
In this passage Dionysius makes no reference to any his- 
torical evidence in support of the opinion which he ad- 
vocates, and consequently his objections gain no weight 
from his position. But the fact that he urged them is 
of great interest, as shewing. the liberty which was still 
allowed in dealing with the Canon. He set forth the 
absolute authority of that which 'could be proved by 
' demonstration and teaching of the Holy Scriptures 3 / he 
regarded it as a worthy task even in small matters to 
. 'harmonize the words of the Evangelists with judgment 
'and good faith 4 / he allowed the Apocalypse itself to be 

1 Cf. p. 245. to compare with it for style and 

2 Dion. ap. Euseb. H. E. I. c. : manner. 

reKfiaipofiai yap eV re rod rjOovs e/ca- 3 Dion. ap. Euseb. H. E. VII. 24 : 

rtpcw Kal rod T(2v \6ycxjv e'idovs /cat ...ret rats airodei^eai Kal didacrKoXlats 

tt}s rod /3t/3\toi> die^ayujyrjs Aeyo- rQv aylwv ypatp&v avvLUTavojiieva 

fievrjs [XT] rbv avrbv elvai. The whole Karadexop-evoi. 

passage is too long to quote, but 4 Dion. Ep. Canon. (Eoutb, Rell. 

will repay a careful perusal. I do not Sacr. III. p. 225): /cat fxydt 5ta0w- 

think there is any other piece of velv fj.r)d£ ivavTiovcrdai rovs €1)0776- 

pure criticism in the early Fathers Attrras irpbs aWrfKovs i»7roXd/3w/xer, • 



1 



il] Later Alexandrine Writers. 321 

the work of an inspired man; but nevertheless he regarded chap. ii. 
the special authorship of the sacred books as a proper 
subject for critical inquiry 1 . And this is entirely con- 
sistent with the belief that the Canon was fixed practically 
by the common use of Christians, and not definitely marked . 
out by any special investigation — that it was formed by 
instinct, and not by argument. Dionysius exercised a free 
judgment on Scripture within certain limits, but these 
limits themselves were already recognized. 

It does not appear that the opinion of Dionysius on Later aux- 
the authorship of the Apocalypse made any permanent writer*. 
impression on the Alexandrine Church ; but indeed the 
few fragments of later writers by. which it is represented 
contain very little that illustrates the history of the 
disputed books. In the meagre remains which survive 
of the writings of Pierius, Theonas 2 (the successor of Dio- 265 a.d. 
nysius in the Episcopate), and Phileas, I have noticed 
nothing which bears upon it. Theognostus, who was at thbogxos- 
the head of the Catechetical School towards the close of 
the third century, makes use of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
as authoritative Scripture 3 ; and Peter Martyr (the sue- peter 

Martyr. 



cessor of Theonas) refers to it expressly as the work of the 300 

Apostle 4 . 

d\\' et /cat p.iKpo\oyla tls elvai So^et term, as has been noticed before 

irepl to ^rjTovfj.€uov...7]fie'Ls evyvw flows (pp. 303, 318), marks a period in the 

ra \exOevra. /cat irforws apfi6o~ai irpo- history of the Canon. 

dv/Aydufiev. He is referring to the 3 Routh, Bell. Sacr. III. 409 : eirl 

iccounts of the Resurrection. Be rots yevaajULevois ttjs ovpavlov du- 

1 It must be noticed that Diony- peas /cat TeXeLwdetcriv ovde/uia wepLKei- 
sius himself quoted the Apocalypse irerai avyyvdbfArjs d-rroXoyia /cat ira- 

rith respect: Euseb. H.E.vii. 10 palrrjcLS (Hebr. vi. 4). 

id init. 4 Routh, Bell. Sacr. IV. 35 : el 

2 One passage of his famous letter firj, cos X^yet 6 dirocrToXos, enlXnroi 5' 
to Lucianus deserves to be quoted. av 17/xas dLrjyovfxeuovs 6 xP ov °s (Hebr. 
As one step by which he was to xi. 32). The succession of testimony 
bring his master to the faith it is does not end here. Alexander who 
said : laudabitur et interim Evange- became bishop about 313 a.d., and 
Hum Apostolusque pro divinis oracu- Athanasius who succeeded Lim 
lis (Routh, Rell. Sacr. in. p. 443). (326 — 373 a.d.), both quote the 
The common use of this collective Epistle as St Paul's. And Eutha- 

C. Y 



A.D. 



322 



The Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 



chap. II. 

Summary of 
the judg- 
ment of the 
Alexandrine 
Church. 



The testimony of the Alexandrine Church to the New 
Testament Canon is thus generally uniform and clear. In 
addition to the acknowledged books the Epistle to the 
Hebrews and the Apocalypse were received there as divine 
Scripture even by those who doubted their immediate 
Apostolic origin. The two shorter Epistles of St John 
were well known and commonly received 1 ; but no one 
except Origen, so far as can be discovered now, was 
acquainted with the second Epistle of St Peter, and it is 
doubtful whether he made use of it 2 . 

In speaking of the Alexandrine Canon it is impossible 
The Egyptian to omit all mention of the Egyptian versions, which even 

Versions. ... ° J r . _ 

m their present corrupt state shew singular marks of 
agreement with the Alexandrine text. But the materials 
which I possess at present are not sufficient to furnish 
any satisfactory result either as to their exact age or as to 
their original form and extent. Two versions into the 
dialects of Upper and Lower Egypt — the Thebaic (Sahi- 
dic) and Memphitic — date from the close of the third cen- 



lius (c. 460 A.D.) only mentions the 
doubts which had been raised on the 
question to refute them (Credner, 
Einleit. 11. 498 f.). 

1 Alexander, who has been men- 
tioned above, in a letter preserved 
by Socrates quotes the second Epi- 
stle as the work of 'the Blessed 
John.' Socr. E. E. 1. 6. 30. His 
testimony is valuable as indicating 
the tendency of the Alexandrine 
Church, which is clearly seen in 
later writers. 

3 In connexion with the Alexan- 
drine Church it is convenient to no- 
tice Julius Africanus, who wrote 
a famous letter to Origen (cf. p. 317, 
n. 7), and studied at Alexandria, 
and afterwards lived at Emmaus in 
Palestine (c. 220 a.d.). His method 
of reconciling the genealogies in St 
Matthew and St Luke is well-known, 



and furnishes an important proof of 
the attention bestowed in his time 
on the criticism of the Apostolic 
Books. He speaks generally of ' all 
' [the writings] of the Old Testament' 
(8<ra rfjs TrdXaids dLadrjKns (ptperai, 
Eouth, Sell. Sacr. 11. p. 226), thus 
implying (as Melito had done before 
him) the existence of a written New 
Testament. It is uncertain from 
the language of Origen whether he 
received the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
Anatolius bishop of Laodicea 
c. 270 a.d. was likewise an Alex- 
andrian, but there is nothing in the 
fragments of his Paschal Canons 
(Euseb. IT. E. vn. 32) which bears 
on the history of the disputed books ; 
he makes use however of 2 Cor. iii. 
12 sqq., giving to KaroTrrpifeaOai 
(ver. 18) the sense of 'beholding' 
and not 'reflecting.' 



II.] Egyptian Versions. 323 

tury 1 . The few fragments of the Basmuric version which chap. n. 
have been published seem to indicate that it was not an 
independent work, but a dialectic revision of the Thebaic 2 . 
Of this latter version considerable portions have been pre- Thebaic, 
served, and among them parts of all the disputed books ; 
but it is now impossible to decide how far they are derived 
from one source 3 . The Memphitic version offers a far Memphitic. 
more hopeful field for criticism. This has been published 
entire from ancient Manuscripts, and the store of these 
has not yet been exhausted 4 . It is then not unreasonable 
to expect that some scholar will point out in this transla- 
tion, as has been done in the Latin and Syriac, how far an 
older work underlies the printed text, and whether that 
can be attributed to one author. But till this has been 
determined no stress can be laid upon the evidence which 
the Version affords for the disputed Catholic Epistles 5 . 
It is worthy of notice however that the position in the 
Manuscripts occupied by the Epistle to the Hebrews — 
before the Pastoral Epistles — is consistent with the judg- 



1 Hug Las shewn this fully and and published in 1852 the Acts from 
satisfactorily. Introd. § 91. The four Manuscripts and the Epistles 
Thebaic Version is probably the from eight Manuscripts more or less 
older, and may date even from the perfect ; but his Prolegomena — 
close of the second century. David- barely a few lines — leave very much 
son, Introd. 11. 213. to be desired. The order of the 

2 Hug. Introd. § 96. Davidson, Epistles in one Berlin Manuscript is 
In trod. 11. 213. remarkable: Colossians, Thessalo- 

3 The fragments were first col- nians, Philemon, Hebrews, Timothy, 
leeted in an Appendix to the fac- Titus. The Apocalypse I believe 
simile of the Cod. Alex, by Woide has not yet been published in this 
and Ford ; but some additions have edition. 

been since made, and they require a 5 Though the ^Ethiopic Version 

careful revision. belongs to the next century, I may 

4 The first edition was published notice that it contains the entire 
by Wilkin s, at Oxford, in 1 716, from N. T. The Acts however is contained 
Manuscripts at Oxford, Rome, and only in one Manuscript in addition to 
Paris. Schwartze published the the two used in the printed Roman 
Gospels at Leipsic in 1846 — 47 ; and edition (1548-9),, on which no great 
on his death Botticher continued reliance can be placed, as the Vul- 
his work, though in a different form, gate was used to supply lacunae. 

Y3 



324 



The Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 



chap. ii. ment of the Alexandrine Church, which received it as the 
work of St Paul 1 . 



The divergence 
of tradition 
in the East 
and West. 



The opinion 
of the Latin 
Churches on 



i. The Epistle 
to the He- 
brews. 



Terttjllian. 



Cyprian. 



§ 2. The Latin Churches of Africa. 

At Alexandria, as has been said, the two streams of 
tradition from the East and from the West unite ; but 
elsewhere they may be traced each in its separate course. 
On the one side we follow the Latin Churches of Africa : 
on the other the Greek Churches of Asia, And both 
again re-appear in close connexion at Rome, a second 
centre of Christendom, but widely different from the first. 

In one respect the judgment of the Churches of North 
Africa materially differed from that of Alexandria on the 
New Testament Canon. The Alexandrine Fathers uni- 
formly recognized the Epistle to the Hebrews as possessed 
of Apostolic authority, if not indeed as the work of St 
Paul. The early Latin Fathers with equal unanimity 
either exclude it from the Canon or ignore its existence. 
The evidence of Tertullian on this point is at once the 
earliest and the most complete. Though the teaching of 
the Epistle offered the most plausible support to the 
severe doctrines of Montanism, yet he nowhere quotes it 
but in one place, and then assigns it positively to Bar- 
nabas the companion of St Paul, placing its authority 
above that of the Shepherd of Hermas, but evidently 
below that of the Apostolic Epistles 2 . In Cyprian again 



1 It may be observed here that 
the Epistle to the Hebrews is placed 
in the same position in the [Eastern] 
Manuscripts KABCH and several 
others, and also by many of the 
Greek Fathers. Cf. Tisch. in Heb. i. i . 
The [Western] Manuscripts DEFG, 
on the contrary, place the Pastoral 
Epistles after those to the Thessa- 
lonians. There are ^also traces of 
another order: In B capitulorum 



numeri tales appositi ut appareat 
eorurn auctorem hanc [ad Hebr. ep.] 
post ep. ad Galatas collocasse. 
Lachm. N. T. II. 537. 

2 De Pudic. c. 20 : Volo tamen ex 
redundantia alicujus etiam comitis 
Apostolorum testimonium snperdu- 
cere idoneum confirmandi de proxi- 
mo jure disciplinam magistrorum. 
Exstat etiam Barnabae titulus ad 
Hebrseos : adeo satis auctorati viri 



II.] Tertullian: Cyprian. 325 

there is no reference to the Epistle ; and on the contrary chap, it 

he implicitly denies that it was a work of St Paul. After 

enumerating many places in which the mystical number 

seven recurs in Holy Scripture, he adds : ' And the Apo- 

' stle Paul who was mindful of this proper and definite 

'number writes to seven Churches. And in the Apo- 

' calypse the Lord writes his divine commands and hea- 

'venly precepts to seven Churches and their Angels 1 .' 

It will be remembered that the same reference to the 

symbolism of the number of the Epistles occurs in the 

Muratorian Canon 2 ; and on the very confines of the Latin 

Church, Victorinus bishop of Petavium (Pettau) in Pan- victorious. 

nonia reproduces the same idea; 'There are/ he says, 

' . . . seven spirits . . . seven golden candlesticks . . . seven 

'Churches addressed by Paul, seven deacons 3 ...' And 

even Jerome bears witness to the general prevalence of 

the belief when he says : € The Apostle Paul writes to 

' seven Churches, for his eighth Epistle to the Hebrews is 

'by most excluded from the number 4 .' Generally indeed 

it may be stated that no Latin Father before Hilary huary* 

quotes the Epistle as St Paul's ; and his judgment and 

ut quern Paulus juxta se constituent tullian's writings are very uncertain, 

in abstinentise tenore, I Cor. ix. 1 De Exhort. Mart. 1 1 (med.) : 

Et utique receptior apud ecclesias Apostolus Paulus qui hujus numeri 

epistola Barnabse illo apocrypho legitimi et certi meminit ad septem 

Pastore mcechorum. Cf. p. 226 f., ecclesias scribit. Et in Apocalypsi 

229. The phrase de proximo jure Dominus mandata sua divina et prae- 

clearly implies that the Apostles had cepta ccelestia ad septem ecclesias et 

the primum jus, to which an Apos- eorum angelos scribit. Cf. Testim. 

tolic man approached nearest. The I. 20 : Unde et Paulus septem ec- 

reading adeo satis auctorati viri (for clesiis scribit et Apocalypsis eccle- 

auctoritatis viro) is justified by the sias septem ponit ut servetur septe- 

context and de Cor. Mil. 2...obser- narius numerus. 

vationem... satis auctoratam consen- 2 Cf. p. 189. 

sus patrocinio. The substitution of 3 Vict. ap. Routh, Hell. Sacr. UT. 

a Deo for adeo seems to be quite p. 459. 

unnecessary, and in fact opposed to 4 Hieron. ad Paul. 50 (al. 103, 

the idea of the sanction of St Paul IV. p v 574) : Paulus Apostolus ad 

which follows. septem ecclesias' scribit, octava enim 

The allusions to the Epistle which ad Hebraeos a plerisque extra nu- 

have been found in other parts of Ter- merum ponitur. 



t 3 oa. 



■*-«-..<>-■ 



326 



The Disputed Boohs of the Canon. [part 



chap. II. 



that of the writers who followed him was strongly influ- 
enced by the authority of Origen 1 . 

With regard to the disputed Catholic Epistles the 
earliest Latin Fathers offer little evidence. Tertullian 



ii. The Epi- 
stles of St 
Jaraes, 
2 Peter, 

2 and 3 John, once expressly quotes the Epistle of St Jude as authorita- 



Jude 

Tertttllian 



Cypeia*-. 



AURELIUS. 



tive and Apostolic 2 . But there is nothing in his writings 
to shew that he was acquainted with the Epistle of St 
James 3 , the second and third Epistles of St John 4 , or the 
second Epistle of St Peter. In Cyprian there is I believe 
no reference to any of the disputed Epistles. Like several 
earlier writers, he quotes the first Epistles of St Peter and 
St John so as to imply that he was not familiarly ac- 
quainted with any other 5 ; but a clause from the record of 
the seventh Council of Carthage, at which he was present, 
shews how little stress can be laid upon such language 
alone. For after that one bishop had referred to the first 
Epistle of St John as 'St Johns Epistle* as though it 
were the only one, Aurelius bishop of Chullabi uses ex- 



1 The references in Lactantius are 
very uncertain, though the coinci- 
dences of argument are remarkable. 
E.g. Hebr. iii. 3 — 6; v. 5, 6 ; vii. 
21, compared with Lact. Instit. iv. 
14 init. (quoted bv Lardner). 

2 De Hah. Mulieh*i 3 :... Enoch 
apud Judam Apostolum testimo- 
nium possidet. This is the only re- 
ference which occurs. 

3 The references given by Semler, 
adv. Jud. 2 (James ii. 23); de Or at. 
8 (James i. 13) are quite unsatisfac- 
tory. The latter passage indeed 
seems to prove clearly that Tertul- 
lian did not know the Epistle, for 
otherwise he must have quoted it. 
The quotation de Exhort. Cast. 7, 
non auditores legis justificahuntur a 
deo sed factor es, is from Rom. ii. 13, 
not rom James i. 22. 

The well - known passage adv. 
Gnost. 12 does not in itself neces- 
sarily shew more than that Tertul- 
lian did not attribute the Epistle to 



St James the Elder ; but the omis- 
sion of all reference to it there, 
when connected with the other facts, 
can leave little doubt that he was 
unacquainted with it. 

4 The reference in the 'treatise 
against Marcion (iv. 16) is certainly 
to 1 John iv. 1, 2, and not to 2 
John 7, though the Latin has not 
preserved the difference between 
eXTjXvddra and kpyjbiitvov. Some dif- 
ficulty has been felt about the 
phrase Johannes in primore Epistola 
(de Pudic. 19): but Tertullian is 
there contrasting the teaching of 1 
John iii. 8, 9 with the passage at 
the beginning of his Epistle : 1 John 
i. 8. This sense of primoris is fully 
justified by Aul. Gell. 1. 18. 2: 
Varro in primore libro scripsit...Cf. 
nott. in loc. 

5 De Exhort. Mart. c. 9 : Petrus 
in epistola sua... c. 10: Johannes in 
epistola sua... 



II.] Tertullian: Cyprian. 327 

actly the same words in quoting the second epistle 1 . At chap. ii. 
the same time however the entire absence of quotations 
from these Epistles in the writings of Cyprian, and (with 
the exception of the short Epistle to Philemon) from these 
Epistles only of all the books of the New Testament, leads 
to the conclusion that he was either ignorant of their 
existence or doubtful as to their authority. One other 
passage alone remains to be noticed. The judgment oUaucla&v. 
Tertullian on the Epistle of St Jude is confirmed by a 
passage in one of the contemporary treatises commonly 
appended to the works of Cyprian, in which it is quoted 
as Scripture' 2 ; and this reference completes I believe the 
sum of what can be gathered irgm early Latin writers on 
this class of the disputed books. 

But if the evidence for these Epistles be meagre, ™j ?%* Apcu 
that for the Apocalypse is most complete. Tertullian tertulliax. 
quotes it continually as the work of the Evangelist St 
John, and nowhere implies any doubt of its authenticity 3 . 
Cyprian again makes constant use of it as Holy Scrip- cypria*. 
ture, though he does not expressly assign it to the author- 
ship of the Evangelist St John 4 . Commodian 5 and Lac- Co5niODIAy - 
tantius 6 make several allusions to it; and, with the ex- 
ception of the Gospel of St John, it is the only book of 
the New Testament which the latter writer quotes by 
name. Frorq. every quarter the testimony of the early 
Latin Fathers to the Apostolic authority of the Apocalypse 
is thus decided and unanimous 7 . 



1 Cf. p. 319, n. 5. 5 Commod. Instr. I. 41. He in- 

2 Adv. Novat. Hcerei. p. xvii. ed. terprets ADtichrist of Nero, who 
Baluz. (quoted by Lardner): sicut should rise again. The conjecture 
scriptum est : Jude 14, 15. 11. 1. i^opcrta Johannis, is very un- 

3 Adv. Marc. ill. 14: Apostolus certain. 

Johannes in Apocalypsi... 6 Lact. Ep. "42 f. :... sicut docet 

4 Be Opere et Eleem. 14: Audi in Johannes in Jlevelatione. 
Apocalypsi Domini tui vocem... So 7 For the Claromontane Sticlio- 
adv. Novat. H&r. p. ix. metry see App. D. 






328 



The Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 



CHAP. II. 

The Canon of 
the Latin 
Churches de- 
fective, but 



free from 

Apocryphal 

additions, 



and regarded 
as a distinct 
whole. 



It appears then that the Canon of the Latin Churches 
up to the beginning of the fourth century differed from 
our own by defect and not by addition. The Latin Fa- 
thers were in danger of bounding the limits of the Canon 
too straitly, as the Alexandrine Fathers were inclined 
to extend them too widely. But the same causes which 
kept them from acknowledging all the books which we 
receive preserved them also from the risk of confounding 
Apocryphal with Canonical writings. Notwithstanding 
the extent of Tertullian's works he refers only to two 
Apocryphal books; and one of these — the Shepherd of 
Hernias — he rejects with contempt 1 : the other — the Acts 
of Paul and Thecla — he declares to be a detected forgery 2 . 
In Cyprian, though he freely uses the Apocryphal books of 
the Old Testament, there is no trace of any Christian 
Apocryphal book ; and in the tracts appended to his 
works there is a single condemnatory reference to the 
Preaching of Paul 3 . Lactantius also once alludes to the 
same book, but without attributing to it any remarkable 
authority 4 ; and elsewhere he quotes the words of the 
Heavenly Voice at our Lord's Baptism according to the 
reading of Justin Martyr 5 . But here the list ends ; and 
on the other hand numerous passages in Tertullian, Cy- 
prian, and Victorinus, shew that they regarded the books 



1 Tert. de Orat. 12. Cf. de Pu- 
dic. 10: Sed cederem tibi si scrip- 
tura Pastoris quae sola mcechos amat 
divino instrumento meruisset incidi, 
si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum 
etiam vestrarum inter apocrypha et 
falsa judicaretur, adultera et ipsa et 
inde patron a sociorum. 

2 De Bapt. i7:...sciant in Asia 
presbyterum qui earn scripturam 
[Acta Pauli et Theclae] construxit, 
quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, 
convict um atque confess um id se 
amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse. 

3 De Bajpt. 14: Est autem adul- 



terini hujus immq internecini bap- 
tismatis si quis alius auctor turn 
etiam quidam ab eisdem ipsis haere- 
ticis propter hunc eundem errorem 
confictus liber qui inscribitur Pauli 
prsedicatio. On the name see Routh, 
Hell. Sacr. v. 325. 

4 Lact. Instit. IV. 2t:... sed et 
futura aperuit illis omnia quae Pe- 
trus et Paulus Romae prsedicaverunt, 
et ea praedicatio in memoriam scripta 
permansit... 

5 Instit. IV. 15: Tunc vox de ccelo 
audita est: Filius meus es tu; ego 
hodie genui te. Cf. p. 137. 



ii.] The Church of ' Rome. 329 

of the New Testament not onl) r as a collection but as a chap. n. 

whole ; not thrown together by caprice or accident, but 

united b) T Divine Providence, and equal in authority with 

the Jewish Scriptures. The language of Tertullian has 

been quoted already; and both Cyprian and Yictorinus 

found a certain fitness in a fourfold Gospel, as w r ell as 

in the seven Churches addressed by St Paul, so that 

the very proportions of the Canon seemed to them to 

be fixed by a definite law 1 . Nor was this strange ; for 

the Old and New Scriptures were in their judgment 

' fountains of Divine fulness,' written by ' Prophets and 

' Apostles full of the Holy Spirit,' before which ' all the 

' tediousness and ambiguities of human discourse must be 

'laid aside 2 .' 

§ 3. The Church of Rome. 
In passing from Africa to Rome we come to the second Rome the 

x ° .ill antipole to 

meeting point of the East and West ; for it could not but Alexandria 

° r ' in the third 

happen that Pome soon became a great centre of the century. 
Christian world. A Latin Church grew up round the 
Greek Church, and the peculiarities of both were har- 
monized by that power of organization which ruled the 
Roman life. But the combination of the same elements 
at Alexandria and Rome was effected in different modes, 
and produced different results. The teaching of the East 
and West was united at Alexandria by the conscious 
operation of a spirit of eclecticism : at Rome by the silent 
pressure of events. The one combination was literary: 
the other practical. The one resulted in a theological 

1 Cf. pp. 300 f., 325. Cypr. Ep. evangelia... It is I think unnecessary 

73. 10: Ecclesia paradisi instar... to make any apology for the use of 

arbores rigat quatuor fluininibus, id Cyprian's letters, 

est e van geliis... Yictorinus (Eouth, 2 Cypr. de Orat. Bom. i; de Ex- 

I Bell. Sacr. in. 456) :... quatuor ani- hort. Mart. I. 4. 

; malia ante thronum Dei quatuor 



330 



The Disputed Books of the Canon. [paet 



chap. II. 



j. The Latin 
writers. 



apollo>~iu3. 
Victor. 

Miyucius 
Felix. 



Cornelius. 
t 252. 



Novatus. 



code : the other in an ecclesiastical system. And though 
it would be out of place to dwell longer on these funda- 
mental differences of Alexandria and Rome — the poles of 
Christendom in the third century — it is of importance to 
bear them in mind even in an investigation into the his- 
tory of the New Testament. 

The earliest memorials of the Latin Church of Rome 
are extremely small, and contain very little which bears 
on the history of the New Testament Canon. Nothing 
survives of the writings of Apollonius and Victor, the first 
Latin authors whose names have been preserved. The 
Octavius of Minucius Felix, like former Apologies, con- 
tains no quotations from the Christian Scriptures; and 
the two letters of Cornelius included in the works of 
Cyprian are scarcely more productive 1 . The treatises of 
Novatus, the unsuccessful rival of Cornelius, are alone of 
such character and extent as to call for the frequent use 
of the Apostolic writings ; and they do in fact contain 
numerous quotations from most of the acknowledged books. 
But Novatus nowhere quotes any other Christian Scrip- 
tures ; and the passing coincidences of thought and lan- 
guage with the Epistle to the Hebrews which occur in 
his essay On the Trinity are very uncertain 2 ; while those 
with the Epistle of St James and 2 Peter are barely worthy 
of notice 3 . It is also of importance to remark that while 
in the later stages of the Novatian controversy, when the 
Epistle to the Hebrews was generally acknowledged, it is 



1 One quotation occurs from St 
Matthew v. 8 ; Ep. ap. Kouth, Rell. 
Sacr. in. 1 8. 

2 De Trin. i6\ Cum sedere [Chris- 
tum] ad dexteram Patris et a pro- 
phetis et ab apostolis approbatur 
(Hebr. i. 3 ; but cf. Eph. i. 20 ; 1 
Pet. iii. 22); id. 3i:...ut quamvis 
probet ilium nativitas Filium, tamen 
moriofera obedientia asserat ilium 



Patemae voluntatis ex quo est mi- 
nistrum (Hebr. v. 8) ; id. s. f. (Hebr. 
v. 7); id. 16: sed vse est adjicienti- 
bus quomodo et detrahentibus posi- 
tum (Apoc. xxii. 18, 19). 

3 De Trin. 8 (2 Pet. ii. 5) ; id. 4 
(James i. 17). The latter passage 
indeed seems to me to shew clearly 
that Novatus was not acquainted 
with the Epistle of St James. 



II.] Dionysius: Cains. 331 

said that the reading of that Epistle was omitted in some chap.il 
Churches from the danger of misunderstanding its teach- 
ing on repentance, no distinct reference to it is made by 
Novatus or by his immediate opponents, which could 
scarcely have been avoided if it had been held to be 
authoritative in their time. 

The preponderance of the Greek element in the Roman "• The Greek 

writers* 

Church even during the third century, at least in a lite- 
rary aspect, is clearly shewn by the writings of Caius, 
Hippolytus, and Dionysius. Of the first and last only dionysius. 
fragments remain ; and nothing more can be gathered 259 ~" 26g A ' 
from the slight remains of Dionysius than that he recog- 
nized a New as well as an Old Testament as a final source 
of truth 1 . Of Caius it is reported by Eusebius that in caius. 
arguing against the 'new scriptures' of the Montanists he ftai 3^ J,t 
enumerated only thirteen Epistles of St Paul, omitting 
that to the Hebrews 2 . Whether he received all the re- 
maining books of the New Testament is left in uncer- 
tainty ; and in the case of the Apocalypse this is the more 
to be regretted, because in one obscure fragment he has 
been supposed to attribute its authorship to Cerinthits 3 . 
In close connexion with Caius must be noticed a group 
of writings which were once attributed to him, but which 
are now, by almost universal consent, assigned to his con- 
temporary Hippolytus. Of these the most important is 
the Treatise against all Heresies, to which frequent refer- ^J s r t e ^ e 
ence has been made already in examining the opinions of resies - 
early heretics on the New Testament Canon. But apart 
from the testimony which it thus conveys I have noticed 
nothing in it which bears upon the history of the disputed 

1 Dion. Rom. fr. (Kouth, Rell. KrjpijTTovaav. 
Sacr. in. 374): Tpidda jmh Krjpvr- 2 Euseb. H. E. yt. 20. 

roixtvqv i'lrb ttjs Betas ypa<p7js 3 ap. Euseb. If. E. III. 28. Cf. p. 

<Tci(pQs k-KiaTo.vra.iy Tpels d£ Qeovs 245, n. 1. 
oHt€ ira\aiav oijTe Kawty btadrjKrjv 



332 



The Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 



chap. II. 

The Little 
Labyrinth. 



The treatise 
On the Uni- 
verse. 



books. Of the Little Labyrinth and the Treatise on the 
Universe only fragments remain. In one passage of the 
former work a charge is brought against certain heretics 
of ' fearlessly tampering with the Divine Scriptures while 
'they said that they had corrected them; so that if any 
' one were to take the Manuscripts of their several teach- 
' ers and compare them together he would find them 
'widely different.... And how daring this offence is even 
' they must know ; for either they do not believe that the 
' Divine Scriptures were uttered by the Holy Spirit, and 
'are unbelievers, or they hold that they are themselves 
' wiser than the Holy Spirit. And what is this but the 
'conduct of madmen? for they cannot deny that the 
' daring act is their own, since the corrections are written 
' by their hand ; and they did not receive the Scriptures 
' in such a form from those by whom they were instructed ; 
' and they have it not in their power to shew the Manu- 
' scripts from which they transcribed their readings 1 .' This 
refers of course chiefly to the text of Scripture, and pro- 
bably of the Old Testament, but it is no less an evidence 
of the vigilance with which the sacred writings were 
guarded, and of the divine authority which was attributed 
to their words. And elsewhere, in noticing the statement 
that a revolution in Christian doctrine had happened after 
the times of Victor, the same author replies that the 
assertion 'would perhaps have been plausible if in the 
'first place the Divine Scriptures had, not opposed it, and 
'next also the writings of brethren before the time of 
'Victor 2 ....' An appeal is thus made both to Scripture 
and to tradition, and the line between them is drawn 
distinctly. The peroration of the Address to the Greeks 
on the Universe has been well likened to the conclusion 



1 Euseb. H. E. v. 28. Eouth, 
Rett. Sacr. 11. 132 sq. 



2 Euseb. I. c. ; Eouth, Bell. Sacr. 
11. 129. 



IL] 



Hippolytus. 



333 



of a Christian Gorgias, painting in vivid and brilliant chap. ii. 
colours the scenes of Hades and the Last Judgment. 
Many passages* from the New Testament are inwrought 
into the composition, but so as to lose much of their 
original character ; and it is consequently impossible to 
point with confidence to the coincidences of thought which 
it offers with the Epistle of St Jude (or 2 Peter) and the 
Apocalypse 1 . The undoubted writings of Hippolytus con- hippolytus. 
tain quotations from all the acknowledged books except °' 
the Epistle to Philemon and the first Epistle to St John. 
Of the disputed books he uses the Apocalypse as an un- 
questionable work of the Apostle St John, and is said to 
have written a Commentary upon it 2 . ' On the other hand 
he is reported not to have included the Epistle to the 
Hebrews among the Epistles of St Paul 3 . But beyond 
this there is nothing to shew his opinion upon the con- 
tents of the Canon 4 . 

From this then it appears that though there is not summary of 
evidence to establish a complete view of ^the Roman Ca- ml Roman ° f 
non in the third century, some points can be ascertained Churdu 
with satisfactory certainty. By the Roman, as well as by 
the Alexandrine and African Churches, the Apocalypse was 
added to the acknowledged books; but like the African 
Church it did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews anions 
the writings of St Paul. Apart however from the evidence 
for particular books, it is evident that as a whole the 



1 Bimsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. I. 393 
sqq. The passages which seem most 
remarkable are the f olio wing : . . . eV 
TO&rcp ro5 xwptqj... d^cry/c^ ctkotos dtrj- 
v€K&s rvyx^ veLV ' T °v T0 T0 %^plov Cos 

<ppOVpiOV aTT€V€fJL7)d7] ^VXCUS 60' lp KCtT- 

€<TTd6r](Tav dyyeXoi (ppovpoi... (Jude 
6; 2 Pet. ii. 4) h rovrcp 5e t$ x^pi-V 
...\tfxv7] irvpbs ao-(3eo~Tov... (Apoc. xx. 
10 sqq.). It may be observed that 
in a passage shortly after this where 



the common text is d\\d real ov rov 
tCcv Trartpwv x o pov-..6pu>(TL...we must 
read ko1 ovtol top tCqv it. x> Bunsen's 
emendation ov top t. it. ^. does not 
suit the description. 

2 DeAntichr. 36. Cf. 29. 

3 Phot. Cod. 121 (Bunseu, Anal. 
I. 411). 

4 The supposed reference to 2 Pet. 
i. 21 in de Antichr. 2 is wholly un- 
certain. 



334 



The Disputed Boohs of the Canon. [part 



chap. ii. Apostolic writings occupied at "Rome, no less than else- 
where, a definite and distinguished place as an ultimate 
standard of doctrine. 

§ 4. The Churches of Asia Minor. 



Scanty litera- 
ture of the 
Asiatic 
Churches. 



r. The 
Church of 
Ephesus. 

POLTCRATES. 
C. 196 A.D. 



The great work of Irenseus written in the remote 
regions of Gaul and preserved for the most part only in a 
Latin translation is the sole considerable monument of 
the literature of the Churches of Asia Minor from the 
time of Polycarp to that of Gregory of Neo-Csesarea or 
even of Basil. Still there is abundant proof of their zeal 
and activity. At Ephesus and Smyrna, in Pontus and 
Cappadocia, there were those who traced back a direct 
connexion with the Apostles, and witnessed to the con- 
tinuity of the Faith. 

During the Paschal controversy in the time of Victor, 
Polycrates bishop of Ephesus addressed a letter in the 
name of a 'vast multitude' of Asiatic bishops to the 
Roman Church, justifying their peculiar usage by the 
example of their predecessors 1 . ' For these all/ he says, 
' observed the fourteenth day of the moon according to 
' the Gospel, transgressing it in no respect, but following 
'it according to the rule of faith 2 .' Yet even this tradi- 
tion was not enough : he had also ' conversed with bre- 
' thren from the whole world, and gone through all Holy 
f Scripture 3 ,' and so at length he was not afraid to meet 



1 Euseb. E. E. v. 24. The letter 
of Polycrates was written in his 
65 th year, and Victor died 197 A. D. ; 
Polycrates then may have conversed 
with Polycarp and Justin Martyr. 
He appears to have been of a Chris- 
tian family (e^Kovra irivre 'irrj ^x wj/ 
kv Kvpicp); and probably the epi- 
scopate had been hereditary in it 
(eirra p.h> rjaav avyyevds fxov iwi- 



(tkottol iyuj 5£ 67500s). At least every 
detail points to the unbroken unity 
of the Church. 

2 Euseb. I. c. : ovtoi irdvres ir'q- 

p7)0~ai> T7]V 7)IA€pai> T7]S reaaapeaKat- 

deKCLTrjs rod irdax^ Kara to eucryy^- 
\iov, /uLTjdfr ircLpeKfiaivovres dWd Kara 
top Kavbva rrjs irlareojs aKo\ov0ovv- 

T€S. 

3 Euseb. 1.c.:...(tvjjlj3€(3\7]kws tols 



II.] Apollonius: Irenceus. 335 

his opponents. Such was the relation of Scripture and chap. ii. 
tradition in the resting-place of St John within a century 
after his death: such the intimate union of Churches 
which were last blessed by the presence of an Apostle. 
Apollonius, who is stated on doubtful authority to have A ™™ *™ 5 - 
been also bishop of Ephesus 1 , recognizes a similar com- 
bination of arguments when he accuses Themison a fol- 
lower of Montanns of 'speaking against the Lord, the 
' Apostles, and the Holy Church,' while in the endeavour 
to recommend his doctrine 'he ventured in imitation of 
e the Apostle to compose a Catholic Epistle 2 .' In addition 
to these natural indications of the peculiar position oc- 
cupied by the Christian Scriptures generally, Eusebius 
mentions that Apollonius 'made use of testimonies from 
'the Apocatypse ;' and this indeed would necessarily be 
the case in a controversy with Montanist teachers, who 
affirmed that the site of the heavenly Jerusalem was no 
other than the little Phrygian town which was the centre 
of their sect 3 . 

It is uncertain at what time and under what circum- 2. The 

Church of 

stances Irenseus left Smyrna on his mission to Gaul. He Smyrna, 
was 'still a boy,' 'at the commencement of life,' when he ^13^200 
listened to Polycarp 'in lower Asia;' but yet he was not 

curb ttjs olKOVfJL€vr]S ddeXcpo'is /cat 7ra- ovtqs eo~Tiv...b Tliirov^av Kal Tvfiiov 

eav dylav ypacprjv dieXr)Xvdu)S... ^lepovaaX^jx dvo/mdaas (iroXeis de' elaiv 

These last words I believe refer to avrai juuKpal rr\s $pvyias) rovs irav- 

the New Testament. Yet cf. Ana- raxbdev e/ce? avvayayelv iOeXcov — 

tol. ap. Euseb. If. E. VII. 32. may remind us of a 'prophet 1 of 

1 Routh, Hell. Sacr. 1. p. 465. our own times. Cf. Epiph. Hcer. 

2 Apoll. ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 18: XLIX. 1 : Xpiards ... air eKa\v\f£ julol 
Qefxiauv ... eTo\u7](re fU[xov/j.€i>os top (a Montanist prophetess) rovrovl 
dirbaroXov KadoXiKrjv riva awra^d- rbv tottov elvat ay lov kolI wde rr\v 
jxevos iinaroXr]!/ ... (3Xa(T<pT]jUL7JjaL d£ 'lepovaaXrjfjL £k rod ovpavov KarievaL. 
els rbv Kvpiov Kal rovs diroarbXovs On the tradition which Apollo- 
zeal tt]v dylav eKKXrjalav. nius mentions that the Apostles 

3 Euseb. I. c. : K€XPV TCLL 5£ Kal were commanded by our Lord to 
fj.apTvpiaLS dirb rrjs 'Iwdvvov 'A7ro- remain twelve years at Jerusalem, 
KaXijxj/eajs. The description which compare Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. 5. 
Apollonius gives of Montanus — 43; Lumper, vn. 5 sqq. 



336 The Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 

chap. ii. too young to treasure up the words of his teacher, so that 
they became the comfort of his old age 1 . While a pres- 
byter at Lyons he was commended by the Church there 

c. i 77 a.d; to Eleutherus bishop of Rome as 'zealous for the covenant 
' of Christ ;' and at a later time he continued to take a 
watchful regard of the ' sound ordinances of the Church ' 
throughout Christendom. Eusebius 2 has collected some 
of his testimonies to the Books of the New Testament, 

His testimony but they extend only to the four Gospels, the Apocalypse, 

lypse. 1 John, and 1 Peter; for he makes no mention of his con- 

stant use of the Acts and of twelve Epistles of St Paul. 
It is however of more importance to notice that he has 
neglected to observe the quotations which Irenaeus makes 

2 John. from 2 John, once citing a verse from it as though it were 
contained in the first Epistle 3 . But in addition to the 
Apocalypse, which Irenseus uses continually as an un- 
questioned work of St John 4 , this is the only disputed 
book which he certainly acknowledged as having Apo- 
stolic authority; and there are no anonymous references 

1 Euseb. H. E. v. 20. Cf. Iren. the references to two Epistles of St 
c. Hcer. in. 3. 4 (Euseb. H. E. IV. John ? The first Epistle, as is well 
14). The date of Irenaeus is much known, was called ad Parthos by 
disputed, depending on that of Po- Augustine and some other Latin 
lycarp. I have given that which authorities ; and the same title irpbs 
appears to be the most probable. Udpdovs is given to the second Epis- 
Eleutherus was still bishop of Rome tie in one Greek Manuscript (62 
when he wrote his great Treatise c. Scholz). The Latin translation of 
Hcer. (in. 3. 3). Clement's Outlines (iv. 66) says : 

2 H. E. v. 8. Secunda Johannis epistola quas ad 

3 Iren. c. Hcer. 1. 16. 3 : 'luavvris virgines {irapdtvovs) scripta simpli- 
sm 6 rod Kvplov /j,adr)T'f)s...2 John cissima est. Jerome, it may be 
n. In the same connexion it would added, quotes names from the third 

• have been natural to quote 2 Peter Epistle as from the second (DeNom. 

and Jude. Hebr.). 

lb. hi. 16. 8 : Johannes in pra?- 4 Iren. c. Hcer. IV. 20. 11 : Joan- 
dicta epistola. .. (2 John 7, 8), after nes domini discipulus in Apocalypsi 
quoting 1 John ii. 18 sqq. Comp. ...Yet he never calls him an Apostle, 
Clem. Alex, quoted p. 311, n. 5. Is though he identifies him (in loc.) 
it possible that the second Epistle with the disciple whom Jesus loved, 
was looked upon as an appendix to John xiii. 25. 
the first ? and may we thus explain 



il] Gregory of Xeo-Ccesarea. 337 

to the Epistle of St James, 3 John, 2 Peter, or St Jude, chap. ii. 
011 which any reliance can be placed. Some coincidences 
of language with the Epistle to the Hebrews are more The Epistle to 
striking ; and in a later chapter Eusebius states that in a 
book now lost Irenseus 'mentions the Epistle to the 
1 Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon 1 .' Agreeably with . 
this, the E23istle to the Hebrews appears to be quoted in 
the second Pfaffian fragment as the work of St Paul 2 ; but 
on the other hand Photius- classes Irenaeus with Hippo- 
lytus as denying the Pauline authorship of the Epistle. 
And this last statement leads the way to the most pro- 
bable conclusion: Irenreus was I believe acquainted with 
the Epistle, but he did not attribute it to St Paul 3 . 

One of the most distinguished converts of (Driven was s- The church 

° ° of Pont us. 

Gregory surnamed Thaumaturgus (the Wonder-worker) 

bishop of Neo-Caesarea (Niksar) in Pontus. His chief Gregory of 

. . . Xeo-Caesarea. 

remaining work is an eloquent address delivered before 
his master when he was about to leave him. From its 
character it contains very little which bears upon the 
Canon, and nothing in regard to the disputed books. But 
in a fragment quoted from Gregory in a Catena there 
occurs a marked coincidence with the lanofuao-e of St 
James 4 ; and Origen in a letter which he addressed to 
him uses among other texts one from the Epistle to the 
Hebrews 5 . From this, as well as from the mode in which peEi^tieto 

' the Hebrews. 

1 Euseb. H. E. v. 26. Cf. p. 310, given which prove the lax use of 
11. 1. Iren. c. Hcer. 11. 30. 9: Solus the word; and a difference of pri- 
hic Deus invenitur qui omnia fecit... vate opinion, which is found also in 
verbo virtutis suo3 (Hebr. i. 3) : ib. the case of Origen, makes the gene- 
iv. it. 4; cf. Sebr. x. 1, &c.\ ib. ral agreement of the Churches more 
V. 5. 1 ; cf. Hebr. xi. 5. conspicuous. 

2 Iren. fr. 38 (p. 854) : 6 Uav\os 4 Cat Vat. ap. Ghisler. Coram, in 
irapaKoKe? rju-ds (Rom. xii. i).../ccu Ierem. I. p. 831 : §rj\ov yap ws irdv 
irdXtv (Hebr. xiii. 15). ayadcv reXeiov debdev Zpxerai. James 

3 Eusebius {H. E. v. 8) noticed i. 17. 

that Irenaeus quoted the Shepherd 5 Ep. ad Greg. 3 : ha \eyr]$ ov 

of Hennas (c. Ho?r. I V. 20. 2) by fiovov to ~Meroxoi rod XpurTov yeyb- 

the name of l Scripture.' But se- va\xev' dWa /cat UtTOxot rod Qeov. 

veral instances have been lately Hebr. iii. 14. 

C. Z 



338 



The Disputed Boohs of the Canon. [part 



231 A.U. 



chap. 11. Gregory treats the writings of the New Testament gene- 
rally, it may be reasonably concluded that he accepted the 
same books as Origen, to whom indeed he owed his know- 
ForeignCon- led^e of the Scriptures. Bat in sending forth such a 

nexions of the ° x . _ . ° 

North of Asia, scholar to the confines of Asia Minor, Ongen only repaid a 
benefit which he had received. When he had been forced to 
leave Egypt he found protection and honour at the hands 
of Alexander, originally a Cappadocian bishop, who was 
advanced to the chair of Jerusalem on the death of Nar- 
cissus, whom he had previously assisted in his episcopal 
work. Nor can these facts be without value in our in- 
quiry. It is surely no slight thing that casual notices 
shew that Christians the most widely separated were 
really joined together by close intercourse : that the 
Churches of remote provinces, whose existence and pros- 
perity was first disclosed by the zeal of a Koman governor, 
are found about a century after in intimate connexion 
with Syria, Egypt, and Greece 1 . And the evidence is yet 
incomplete; for among others who visited Origen during 
his sojourn in Syria w 7 as Firmilian bishop of Csesarea in 
Cappadocia, the correspondent and advocate of Cyprian 2 ; 
and thus for the moment an obscure corner of Asia be- 
comes a meeting-point of Christians from every quarter, 
not only ' as if they lived in one country, but as dwelling 
' in one house 3 .' The single letter of Firmilian, which is 
preserved in a Latin translation among the letters of 
Cyprian, contains numerous allusions to the acknowledged 
books, and in one place he appears to refer to the second 
Epistle of St Peter. 'The blessed Apostles Peter and 
'Paul/ he says, 'have anathematized heretics in their 
£ Epistles, and warned us to avoid them 4 .' 



Fttt m-tt.ta ??. 



>$6 A.D. 



2 Peter ii. 



^ 1 Cf. Euseb. H.E.tv. 23 : dW-q 

5' €TTL(TTO\rj TIS CLVTOV [Al0J>V(7t0l/] 

irpbs TXiKOfMTjddas (p^perac... 
2 Euseb. H. E. vi. 27. 



3 Firm. Ep. 75 (Cypr.) § 1. 

4 Firm. Ep. § 6 : Adhuc etiam 
infamans Petrum et Paulum beatos 
Apostolos...qui in epistolis suis hce- 



ii] Methodius. 339 

But the influence of Origen was not dominant in all chap ii. 
parts of Asia Minor. Methodius a bishop of Lycia 1 and ] 1 c™TL\k 
afterwards of Tyre distinguished himself for animosity to 
his teaching, which Eusebius so far resented, if we may 
believe the common explanation of his silence, as to omit . 
all mention of him in his history, though his works were 
'popularly read' in Jerome's time 2 . There is nothing 
however to indicate that the differences which separated 
Methodius from Origen extended either to the Interpre- 
tation or to the Canon of Scripture; and thus they give 
fresh value to his evidence by confirming its independ- 
ence. Like earlier Fathers, Methodius found a mystical 
significance in the number of the Gospels 3 ; and his 
writings abound with quotations from the acknowledged 
books. He also received the Apocalypse as a work of He received 
t the blessed John' and as possessing undoubted authority 4 , lypse and 
Besides this, numerous coincidences of language shew that the Hebrews. 
he was acquainted with the Epistle to the Hebrews; and 
though he does not directly attribute it to St Paul, he 
uses it with the same familiarity and respect as he exhi- 
bits towards the Pauline Epistles 5 . 

reticos exsecrati sunt et lit eos evi- 3 Symjios. de Cast. p. 391 D. 

ternus monuerunt. In the same 4 De Resurr. p. 326 B: eT?i<jrr\(jov 

chapter Firmilian notices (as unim- de fJLrjiroTe kclI 6 fiaKapLos 'ludvvris... 

portant) ritual differences between Apoc. xx. 13. lb. p. 328 D : 7r£s §77 

the Roman and Eastern churches : en 6 Xpujrbs irpwrbroKOS elvai r<2u 

circa celebrandos dies Pascha? et veKp&v virb tQi> irpocp^rCv nal rCv 

circa multa alia divinse rei sacra- airocrroXiov aderai ; (Apoc. i. 5 ; Col. 

menta... secundum quod in caeteris i. 18). Methodius is also mentioned 

quoque plurimis provinciis multa by Andreas of Caesarea with Papias, 

pro locorum et nominum (?) diverui- Irenajus, and Hippolytus, as a wit- 

tate variantur... ness to the v divine inspiration' of 

1 Socr. H. E. vi. 13: ...Me06c)£os the Apocalypse (Routh, Bell. tacr. 
t?)s ev Au/a'a 7ro\ea>s Xeyofxevrjs 'OAi/,u- I. 15). He interpreted much of it 
ttov €7TL(TK07ros. Socrates (/. c.) alone allegorically — els ttjv €KK\r]criav kcll 
mentions that Methodius recanted ras wapdevovaas {St/mpos. p. 388 a). 
his censures on Origen; yetprobab.'y 5 De Resurr. p. 2S6 D. Hebr. xii. 
his words mean no more than that 5, <&c.^ In the spurious tract on 
he expressed admiration for Origen's ' Symeon and Anna' it is quoted as 
character, and not for his doctrine. 'the most divine Paul's' (p. 427 d). 

2 Hieron. de Yirr. 111. 83. Methodius must be added to the 



340 The Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 

chap, ii The heresy of Montanus, as has been seen already, 

Staphrygas occupied much of the attention of Asiatic writers at the 
beginning of the third century, The steady opposition 
which they offered to the pretensions of the new prophets 
is in itself a proof of the limits which they fixed to the 
presence of inspired teaching in the Church, and of their 
belief in the completeness of the Revelation made through 
the Apostles. In an anonymous fragment which Eusebius 
has preserved from one of the many treatises on the sub- 
ject this opinion finds a remarkable expression. For a 
long time, the writer says, I was disinclined to undertake 
the refutation of the opinions of multitudes ' . . . through 
' fear and careful regard lest I should seem in any way to 
' some to add any new article or clause to the word of the 
Apoc. xxii. 18, 'New Covenant of the Gospel, which no one may add to 

6 or take from who has determined to live according to 
'the simple Gospel 1 / The coincidence of these words 
with the conclusion of the Apocalypse cannot but be 
apparent ; and they seem to recognize a complete written 
standard of Christian truth. 

The canon So far then there is no trace in the Asiatic Churches 

defective, hut of the use of the Epistle of St Jude ; and the use of the 
Epistle of St James and of the second Epistle of St Peter 
is at least very uncertain. Methodius alone undoubtedly 
employs the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews; but 
on the other hand the Apocalypse was recognized from the 
first as a work of the Apostle in the districts most imme- 
diately interested in its contents. The same may be said 
of the second Epistle of St John, and the slight value of 

many before him who quote Ps. ii. fievos firj tttj 56£w ti<j\v eiricrvyypd- 

7 as having been uttered at our <p€iu y iTridcaTdjcreadaL (cf. Gal. iii. 
Lord's Baptism (Symjoos. p. 387 r>). 15) r<£ rrjs rod evayy eXiov Kaivijs 5m- 
Cf. pp. 137, 328. " d'rjKrjs Xoycx), y mrz irpoddelvat. fiyr 

1 Auct. adv. Cataphr. ap. Euseb. dtyekelv dvuarop r<£ Kara rb etfcr)^- 
H. E. V. 16 (Eouth, Hell. Sacr* 11. \lov avrb Tro\LTevea0at wporjpTjfi^v. 
p. 183 sqq.): dedubs 5£ Kal JZevXafiotj- 



H.] Theophilus. 311 

merely negative evidence is shewn by the fact that no chap. ii. 
quotation from his third Epistle has yet been noticed, 
though its authenticity is necessarily connected with that 
of the second. But if the evidence for the New Testament 
Canon in the Churches of Asia Minor be incomplete, it is free from 
pure and unmixed. The reference of Irenseus to the additions. 
Shepherd of Hermas is the only passage with which I am 
acquainted which even appears to give authority to an 
uncanonical book. Holy Scripture as a whole was recog- 
nized as a sure rule of doctrine. We acknowledge, said 
the Presbytery to Noetus, 'one Christ the Son of God, 
' who suffered as He suffered, who died as He died, who 
'rose again, who ascended into heaven, who is on the 
'right hand of the Father, who is coming to judge quick 
c and dead. This w T e say, having learnt it from the Divine 
'Scriptures, and this also we know 1 .' 



§ 5. The Churches of Syria. 

Nothing more than the names of the successors of x . ru church 
Ignatius in the see of Antioch has been preserved till the ° ntl0C 
time of Theophilus the sixth in descent from the Apostles, theophilus. 
Of the works which he wrote, three books to Autolycus — 
Elementary Evidences of Christianity 2 — have been pre- 
served entire ; but the commentaries which bear his name 
are universally rejected as spurious. Eusebius has noticed 
that Theophilus quoted the Apocalypse in a treatise against The Apoc* 
Hermogenes 3 ; and one passage in his extant writings has 
been supposed to refer to it 4 . The reference however is 

1 Epiph. Hccr. Lvn. 1 ; Routh, already, p. 322, n. *. 
Rell. Sacr. iv. p. 243. Miltiades 2 Euseb. H.E. iv. 24: rpia ra 

again, with whose country I am un- irpbs AvtoXvkov o~TOLXciudy (peperai 

acquainted, is said to have shewn avyypdp.f.taTa. 
'great zeal about the Divine Ora- 3 Euseb. I.e. 

'cles' (Euseb. H. E. x. 17). Anato- 4 Theopb. ad Autol. n. p. 104. 

lius of Laodicea has been mentioned Apoc! xii. 3 sqq. 



Si2 



The Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 



chap. II. 



- Peter. 



Ferapion. 

C. 190 A.D. 



very uncertain; nor can much greater stress be laid on a 
passing coincidence with the language of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews 1 . The use which Theophilus makes of a 
metaphor which occurs in 2 Peter is much more worthy 
of notice 2 ; and it is remarkable that he distinctly quotes 
the Gospel of St John as written by one of those ' who 
' were moved by the Spirit 3 .' 

Serapion who was second in descent from Theophilus 
has left a very remarkable judgment on the Gospel ac- 
cording to Peter, which he found in use at Khossus, a 
small town of Cilicia. ' We receive/ he says, when writing 
to the Church there 4 , 'both Peter and the other Apostles 
{ as Christ; but as experienced men we reject the writings 
' falsely inscribed with their names, since we know that 
' we did not receive such from [our fathers. Still I allow- 
' ed the book to be used,] for when I visited you I sup- 
' posed that all were attached to the right faith ; and as 
' I had not thoroughly examined the Gospel which they 
1 brought forward under the name of Peter I said : If this 
' is the only thing which seems to create petty jealousies 
' (/jbtKpoyjnj^Lav) among you, let it be read. But now since 
' I have learnt from what has been told me that their 
' mind was covertly attached to some heresy (alpiaet nvl 
' evefydSkevev) I shall be anxious to come to you again ; so, 
' brethren, expect me quickly. But we, brethren, having 
' comprehended the nature of the heresy which Marcianus 
' held — how he contradicted himself from failing to under- 
' stand what he said you will learn from what has been 
' written to you — were able to examine [the book] tho- 
i roughly having borrowed it from others who commonly 



1 Ad Autol. 11. p. 102. Hebr. xii. 
9. Cf. Lardner, II. 20, 25 sqq. 

2 Ad Autol. 11. c. 13 (p. 92) : 17 
cuara£is ovv rod Qeov rovro cgtiv, 6 
X670S avrov (paivcop wairep Xi5- 



X V O S €l> OLKTj/JUTL (JVV^X°l l ^ VL 9 €(piOTl(Te 

T7]v ut' ovpavov... Cf. 2 Pet. i. 19. 

8 Ad Autol. II. 22. 

4 Euseb. H.E. vi. 12. Kouth, 
Bell. Sacr. I. 452 sqq. 






il] Serapion. 34:3 

1 use (da-fcrjaavTcov) this very Gospel, that is from the chap, il 
1 successors of those who first sanctioned it, whom we call 
c Docetae (for most of [Marcianus'] opinions belong to their 
c teaching) ; and to find that the greater part of its con- 
1 tents agrees with the right doctrine of the Saviour, 
1 though some new injunctions are added in it which we 
1 have subjoined for your benefit 1 / Something then may 
be learnt from this as to the authority and standard of 
the New Testament Scriptures at the close of the second 
century : the writings of the Apostles were to be received 
as the words of Christ : and those only w T ere to be acknow- 
ledged as such which were supported by a certain tradi- 
tion. Nor can the conduct of Serapion in allowing the 
public use of other writings be justly blamed. It does not 
appear that the Gospel of Peter superseded the Canonical 
Gospels ; and it is well known that even the Gospel of 
Xicodemus maintained a place at Canterbury — ' fixed to a 
1 pillar ■ — up to the time of Erasmus. 

The seventh in succession from Serapion was Paul of path, of 

x Sarnosata. 

Samosata, who was convicted of heresy on the accusation 
of his own clergy, and finally deposed by the civil autho- 
rity of the heathen Emperor Aurelian. Nothing remains 260—272 a.d. 
of his writings, but it is recorded that he endeavoured to 
maintain his opinions by the testimony of the Old and 
New Testaments, and his adversaries relied on the same 

1 Euseb. I.e. ; Routh, Hell. Sacr. Many Manuscripts omit a before 

I. 452 sqq. The text of the frag- /-tatf., and the confusion of II AP with 

ment is corrupt, and I have ven- TAP is of constant occurrence. The 

tured to introduce some slight cor- changes of number — t]/jL€ls, iydj, TjfieTs 

rections by which the whole con- — seem to prove that the sentences 

nexion appears to be improved. The (^pax^ias \^£e<s Eusebius calls them) 

middle sentence should I believe be are not continuous. As far as I am 

read thus : Tj/xeh d£ dde\(pol KaraXa- aware, all follow Valesius in trans- 

(36fJLevoL biro'ias tju aipeaeus 6 Map/act- lating Karap^afxevcov avrou qui Mar- 

vbs (accu [c«3s] eavT(^ tjvclvtiovto firj ciano prceiverunt; but analogy sup- 

vowv a i\d\€L [om. a] fxadrjereade e£ ports the rendering which I have 

<Zv v[xlv iypdcpTj) edvwqdrj/jLev [om. yap] given. 
Trap' &\\a;j> tQv &<7KT)crdvTui>) k.t.X. 



344 



Tfte Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 



chap. ii. books to refute him. A Synodical Epistle e addressed to 
* Paul by the orthodox bishops before his deposition' has 
been preserved 1 , in which, in addition to many other 
^Epistle to quotations from the New Testament, the Epistle to the 
Hebrews is cited as the work of St Paul 2 . And in another 
letter addressed to the bishops of Alexandria and Rome 
by Malchion a presbyter of Antioch in the name of the 
' bishops, priests, and deacons, of the neighbouring cities 
' and nations, and of the Churches of God/ Paul is de- 
scribed, with a clear allusion to the Epistle of St Jude, as 
one who ' denied his God and Lord, and kept not the faith 
' which he himself had formerly held 3 .' 

The first traces of the theological school of Antioch, 
which became in the fourth and fifth centuries a formid- 
able rival to that of Alexandria, appear during the period 
of the controversy with Paul. Dorotheus a presbyter of 
the Church is described by Eusebius 4 as a man remark- 
ably distinguished for secular learning, who 'in his zeal 
' to understand the full beauty of the divine [writings] 
' studied the Hebrew language, so as to read and under- 
( stand the original Hebrew Scriptures.' Lucian another 
presbyter of Antioch 'well trained in sacred studies 5 ' de- 
voted himself to a critical revision of the Greek text of 
the Bible. In carrying out this work it is said that he 
introduced useless corrections into the Gospels; and the 



Malchion. 



St Jude. 



The School of 
A atioch. 



Dorotheus. 
c. 290 A.D. 



Lucian. 



1 Doubts were raised as to the 
genuineness of this Epistle by Bas- 
nage, and repeated by Lardner and 
Lumper ; but Routh considers them 
of no weight (Lumper, Xlll. 711 sqq. ; 
'Routh, Rell. Sacr. in. 321 sqq.). 
The question appears to depend al- 
together on the good faith of Turri- 
anus, who first published the Epistle. 
The Epistle itself is almost made up 
of a collection of passages of Scrip- 
ture. 

2 Ep. ap. Routh, Rell. Sacr. 111. 
299: .../card tqv airbaTo\ov ... kclI 



7rd\tv...Kal irepl Mtovcrecos' Meifrova 
ttXovtop Tiyqaajxevos rCov Alyvwrov 
drjaavpCov rbv dueidLcrpLbu rod Xpiarov 
(Heb. xi. 26). So again just before, 
Heb. iv. 15 is incorporated in the 
text of the Epistle. 

3 Ep. ap. Euseb. H. E. vn. 30 : 
...rod Kod rbv Qebi> rbv eavrov kcll 
Ktipiov apvov/ievov, kclI ttju ttIgtiv 
t}v Kal avrbs irpbrepov e^e jllt] <pv\d- 
%avTos. Cf. Jude 3, 4 (reading Qebv). 

4 Euseb. H.E. vn. 32. 

5 Euseb. H. E. ix. 6 : roh lepois 
jULCLdrjfJLaO-L o-vyK€KpoTr)p.fros. 






II.] Pampltilus. 34-5 

copies which he had 'falsified' were pronounced Apocry- chap, it 
phal in later times 1 . In the absence of all evidence on 
the question it is impossible to determine in what respect 
his text differed from that commonly received; but it 
may be noticed that there is nothing to shew that he held 
any peculiar views on the Canon itself. Lucian died a 
martyr in the persecution of Maximinus; and Rufinus has t w a.d. 
preserved in a Latin translation a part of the defence 
w T hich he addressed to the Emperor on his trial 2 . The 
fragment is of singular beauty, and contains several allu- 
sions to the Gospels and Acts ; but it is more remarkable 
as containing an appeal to the physical phenomena con- 
nected with the Passion — to the darkness, said by Lucian 
to be recorded in heathen histories,, to the rent rocks, and 
to the Holy Sepulchre, still to be seen in his time at 
Jerusalem 3 . 

Antioch was not the only place in Syria where the 2. The church 

J L ** o/Caesarea. 

Christian Scriptures were made the subject of learned and 
laborious study. Pamphilus a presbyter of Csesarea, the pamfhilus. 
friend of Eusebius and the apologist of Origen, was ' in- 
1 flamed with so great a love of sacred literature that he 

1 Decret. Gelas. vi. § 14 : Evan- version of Eusebius (H. E. IX. 6). 
gelia quae falsavit Lucianus Apo- It is printed by Routh, Hell. Sac?'. 
crypha. Credner (Zur Gesch. d. K. iv. 5 sqq. ; and I see no reason to 
s. 216) regards this as one of the doubt its authenticity. 

additions to the original Decree of 3 Luc. ap. Routh, Bell. Saci\ IV. 
Gelasius (c. 500 a.d.) made at the p. 6: Si minus adhuc creditur, adhi- 
time when it was republished in bebo vobis etiam loci ipsius in quo 
Spain under the name of Hormisdas res gesta est * testimonium. Adsti- 
(c. 700 — Soo a.d.). pulatur his [quae dico] ipse in Hie- 
The next clause in the decree is: rosolymis locus, et Golgothana rupes 
Evangelia quae falsavit Isicius Apo- sub patibuli onere disrupta: antrum 
crypha, §15. This certainly refers to quoque illud quod avulsis inferni 
the recension of the Xew Testament januis corpus denuo reddidit anima- 
published in Egypt by Hesychius at turn, quo purius inde ferretur ad 
the close of the third centur}-, which ccelum...Ilequirite in annalibus ves- 
is classed by Jerome with that of tris : invenietis temporibus Pilati, 
Lucian; but nothing is known of its Christo patiente, fugato sole inter- 
character. The speculations of Hug ruptum tenebris diem. The rhetori- 
are quite unsatisfactory. cal colouring of the passage cannot 

2 The defence occurs in Eufinus' affect the facts affirmed. 



346 The Disputed Books of the Canon. [part 

chap. ii. ' copied with his own hand the chief part of the works of 
' Origen/ which in the time of Jerome were still preserved 
in the library which he founded 1 . This library at Csesarea 
is frequently mentioned by ancient writers, and when it 
fell into decay towards the close of the fourth century, it 
w T as restored by the care of two bishops of the city. Its 
extent is shewn by the fact that Jerome found there a 
copy of the famous Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew ; and 
memorials of it have been preserved to the present time. 
The Coislinian fragment of the Pauline Epistles (H), in 
The Epistle to which the Epistle to the Hebrews is placed before the 

the Hebrews. x m *- 

Pastoral Epistles, contains a note stating that it was ' com- 

' pared with the copy in the library of Saint Pamphilus at 

' Cassarea, written by his own hand 2 .' Nor is this all. At 

The Catholic the end of the edition of the Acts and of the [seven] 

Epistles. . . p . 

Catholic Epistles published by Euthalius it is said that 
the book was 'compared with the accurate copies con- 
' tained in the library of Eusebius Pamphilus 3 at Caesarea;' 
and though it is not expressly stated that these copies 
were written by Pamphilus himself, yet it is probable that 
they were, from the fact that the summary of the contents 
of the Acts published under the name of Euthalius is a 
mere transcript of a work of Pamphilus 4 . If then this 

1 Hieron. de Virr. III. 75 : Tanto Otjktjs Euo-epiov rod Uajui<pt\ov. The 
bibliotheca? divinas amore flagravit... last genitives are ambiguous, and 
The phrase 'bibliotheca divina' may refer either to avTiypacpa or 
means I believe the collection of (3i(3\Lodr}K7)s. 

sacred Scriptures. Cf. Routh, Rell. The summary of verses given at 

Sacr. in. 488. As to Pamphilus' the end (p. 513) does not agree with 

labours on the LXX cf. Lardner, numbers previously given ; nor can 

II. 59. 5. I explain the phrase to irpbs ifiavrbv 

2 For the order of the Epistles in crixoi k?. But these difficulties 
this Manuscript see Montfaucon, seem to shew that Euthalius did not 
Bibl. Coislin. p. 253. Tischendorf, compose the whole work, but in part 
N. T. ed. 7, p. clxxxix. transcribed it. 

3 Zacagni, Collect, p. 513: avre- 4 Montf. Bibl. Coislin. p. 78. 
p\r)0w d£ tCov irp&^euv koX KadoXiKuv Routh, Rell. Sacr. III. 5iosq. The 
€TTL<rTo\G)v to (3(.{3\iov irpbs tcl aKpifirj recurrence in the preface to this 
&PTiypa<pa T7js h Kcuaapelq: (3ifi\io- summary of a very remarkable 






ii. j Pamphilus. 347 

conjecture be right, it may be inferred that the seven chap. ii. 
Catholic Epistles were formed into a collection at the 
close of the third century, and appended, as in later times, 
to the Acts of the Apostles. So much at least is certain, 
that Pamphilus, a man of wide learning and research, 
reckoned the Epistle to the Hebrews among the writings 
of St Paul, whether he regarded it as actually penned 
by the Apostle, or, like Origen, as the expression of his 
thoughts by another writer. 

Though Pamphilus devoted his life to the study of the Pmwhaw? 

ox* J Apology for 

Holy Scriptures, he never assumed the office of a com- Origen 
mentator; but Jerome's statement that c he wrote nothing 
' except short letters to his friends ' must be received with 
some reserve 1 . In addition to the Summary of the Acts 
already noticed, there can be no doubt that the com- 
mencement of an Apology for Origen occupied his atten- 
tion during his last confinement in prison. The first book, 
which bears his name, and was probably his work, has 
been preserved; and the quotations from Origen which it 
contains embrace distinct references to the Apocalypse as recognizes th< 
the work of St John 2 , proving, if proof were necessary, 
that on this point Pamphilus followed his master's judg- 
ment. 

Thus then in the Syrian Church 3 there are traces of a The Syrian 

phrase found in the subscription of Hoc unum est. Jerome is speaking 

the Manuscript of the Pauline Epi- of the Apology for Origen, but he 

sties copied from that of Pamphilus was misled by the fact that Euse- 

seems to be conclusive on the point : bius completed it. 

evxv Ty virep tj/jluv T7)v o-vuirepKpopav 2 Pamph. Apol. VII.: Apoc. XX. 

Kopc^opeuos. The Summary as it oc- 13, 6. I have not noticed any other 

curs in Zacagni (pp. 428 sqq.) is in- references to the disputed books in 

troduced quite abruptly; and Za- the Apology. 

cagni's explanation of the allusion 3 The Greek Syrian Church is of 

to the youth of the writer (Pref. p. course not to be confounded with 

63) is unsatisfactory. the native Syrian Church, which re- 

1 Hieron. adv. Ruf. iv. p. 419. tained the Canon of the Peshito ; 

Cf. iv. p. 347: Date quodlibet aliud cf. p. 212, and Part III. ch. II. 
opus Pamphili; nusquam reperietis. 



mary. 



348 The Disputed Boohs of the Canon, [part ii. 

chap. ii. complete Canon of the New Testament at the beginning 
pute. n )m ' of the fourth century, and that free from all admixture of 
Apocryphal writings. The same district which first re- 
cognized a collection of Apostolic writings in the Peshito 
was among the first to complete that original Canon by the 
addition of the other works which we now receive 1 . And 
briefly it may be said that wherever the East and the 
West entered into a true union there the Canon is found 
perfect ; while the absence or incompleteness of this union 
is the measure of the corresponding defects in the Canon. 
General sum- This clearly appears on a summary of the results ob- 
tained in this chapter. At Alexandria and Caesarea, where 
there was the closest intercourse between the Eastern and 
Western Churches, the Canon of the New Testament was 
fixed, even if with some reserve, as it stands at present. 
In the Latin Churches on the contrary no trace has yet 
been found of the use of the Epistle of St James, or of 
the second Epistle of St Peter; and the Epistle to the 
Hebrews was not accepted by them as the work of St 
Paul. But one of the disputed books was still received 
generally without distinction of East and West. With the 
single exception of Dionysius. all direct testimony from 
Alexandria, Africa, Rome, and Carthage, witnesses to the 
Apostolic authority of the Apocalypse. 

1 One testimony from an Eastern Hebr. viii. 13: p. 127, Hebr. i. 3: 
Church has not yet been noticed. p. 149, Hebr. iii. 5, 6. The refer- 
In the Acts of a Disputation be- ence to 2 Pet. iii. 9 in p. 107, non 
tween Archelaus Bishop of Caschar enim moratus est in promissionibus 
(or, as some conjecture, of Carrhse) suis, is very uncertain. We have 
in Mesopotamia (? cf. Beausobre, these Acts however at present in a 
. Hist, de Manich. I. p. 143) and very unsatisfactory form, as they 
Manes there are several clear allu- exist for the most part only in a 
sions to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Latin translation from the Greek, 
though it is not quoted by name. which was itself probably a transla- 
Disp. Arch, et Man. ap. Routh, Bell. tion from the Syriac. 
Sacr. v. p. 45, Hebr. vi. 8 : p. 75, 






CHAPTER III. 

THE TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL AND APOCRYPHAL 

WRITINGS TO THE BOOKS OF THE 

NEW TESTAMENT. 



Quodcunque adversus veritatem sapit hoc erit kozresis, etlam vetus 

consuetude-. 

Tertullianus. 



THE controversies which agitated the Christian Church chap. hi. 
from the close of the second century to the commence- of Keretuai^ 
ment of the third shew practically, like those of the first TUfo ' rmsof 
age, what theological position was then occupied by the ^S^ulm 
New Testament. The form of the old errors was changed, f^fvlTes- 
but their spirit, gave life to new systems. Ebionism had tamenL 
sunk down into a mere tradition 1 , but its principles were 
embodied in the Christian legalism of the Montanists. 
The same rationalistic tendencies which moved Marcion 
afterwards appeared in the questions raised on the Person 
of Christ from the time of Praxeas to that of Arius. And 
the Simonian counterfeit of Christianity found a partial 
parallel in the scheme of Mani, less wild, it is true, and 
more successful. But each great school of heresy did good 
service in the cause of the Christian Scriptures. The dis- 
cussions on the Holy Trinity turned upon their right 
interpretation, so that their authority was a necessary 

1 Haxthausen (Transcaucasia, p. but possess a Gospel written by 

T40) mentions the existence of a Longinus the first teacher of their 

sect of Judaizing Christians (Uriani) Church. It is to be hoped that 

at present in Derbend on the Cas- some light may be thrown on this 

pian. They have, as he heard, no strange statement, 
knowledge of the Apostolic writings, 



350 The Testimony of Heretical Writings. [paet 



chap. III. 



i. Controver 
sies on the 
Person of 
Christ. 



postulate to the argument. The Montanists, while they 
appealed to the fresh outpouring of the Spirit, did not 
profess to supersede or dispense with the books which 
were commonly received. Even the Manichaeans found 
the belief in their divine claims so strong that they could 
not set them aside as a whole, but were contented with 
questioning their integrity. 

The controversies on the person of Christ first arose 
from a necessary reaction within the Church against the 
speculations of the Gnostics on the succession and orders 
of divine powers. The simple baptismal confession which 
became the popular rule of faith 1 contained no reference 
to the doctrine of the Word, and the unlearned stumbled 
at the 'mysterious dispensation' of the Holy Trinity. 
1 We are Monarchians,' they said, ' we acknowledge only 
' one God 2 .' This Monarchianism naturally assumed a 
double form, according as the unity of God was supposed 
to be rightly asserted by identifying the Son with the 

(a) Patripas- Father, or by denying His proper divinity. Praxeas and 
Theodotus stood forth at the same time at Rome as the 
champions of these antagonistic opinions. Praxeas seems 
to have retained his connexion with the Catholic Church ; 
Theodotus was excommunicated. But though they differ- 
ed thus widely in doctrine and fortune, both held alike 
the general opinion of Christians on the authority of the 
Apostolic writings. Tertullian who attacked Praxeas, with 
greater zeal perhaps because he had proved himself a 
formidable opponent of Montanism, urged against him 
' various passages of the New Testament without hesitation 
or reserve, and answers an argument which he drew from 

(^Unitarian: the Apocalypse 3 . And though the followers of Theodotus 



mn: 
Praxeas. 

i. 170 A.D 



1 Tert. de Yirg. Vel. 1: Regula scilicet in unicum Deum... 
quidem fidei una omnino est, sola 2 Tert. adv. Prax. 3. 

immobilis et irreformabilis, credendi 3 Adv. Prax. 17: Interim Lie 



■O A.D. 



II.] Montanism. 351 

were accused of ' tampering fearlessly with the Holy ciiap. hi. 
'Scriptures/ it is evident that their corrections extended 
only to the text, and not to the Canon itself 1 . So like- 
I wise in the later stages of the Trinitarian controversy, 
with Hermogenes, Noetus, Vero, Beryllus, and Sabellius 2 , 
on one side, and with Artemon and Paul of Samosata 
on the other, the Scriptures were always regarded as the 
common ground on which the questions at issue were to 
be settled. 

In the midst of the discussions which were thus ex- 2 . Montanism. 
tending rapidly in the Church towards the close of the 
second century, it was natural that Christians should look 
around for some sure sign of God's presence among them, 
and for some abiding criterion of truth. The urgency of 
this want gave power and success to the teaching of Mon- 
tanus. A strict discipline promised to serve as a mark of c ^ 
the elect ; and prophecy was offered to solve the doubts of 
believers. But the relation of the new prophecies to the 
Apostolic teaching proves how completely the New Testa- 
ment Scriptures were identified with the sources of Chris- 
tian doctrine. Tertullian after he became a Montanist, no 
less than before, appeals to them as decisive. The out- 
pouring of the Spirit, he says, was made in order to re- 
move the ambiguities and parables by which the truth 
was obscured 3 ; to illustrate and not to set aside the writ- 

mihi proraotum sit responsum ad- 3 De Resurr. Cam. s. f. : ...Jam 

versus id quod et de Apocalypsi Jo- omnes retro ambiguitates et quas 

annis proferunt. Apoc. i. 8. volunt parabolas aperta atque per- 

1 Cf. p. 332. spicua totius sacramenti praedicati- 

2 Epiphanius (Hcer. lxii. 2) says one [Spiritus Sanctus] discussit, per 
that Sabellius borrowed many points novam prophetiam de Paracleto in- 
in his system from the Gospel ac- undantem; cujus si hauseris fontes 
cording to the Egyptians. There is nullam poteris sitire doctrinam : nul- 
however nothing to shew that Sa- lus te ardor exuret qusestionuin... 
bellius placed it in rivalry with the De Virg. Vel. 1 : Qua? est ergo Pa- 
Canonical Gospels. The opinions of racleti adminis. ratio nisi baec, quod 
the Alogi on the writings of St John disciplirla dirigitur, quod scripturae 
have been noticed already, p. 245, revelantur, quod intellectus reior- 
and note 2. matur, quod ad meliora proficitur? 



352 The Testimony of Heretical Writings. [part 

chap. in. ten Word 1 ; to confirm and define what had been already- 
given, and not to introduce anything strange or novel 2 . 
The ancient Scriptures still remained a treasure common 
to Montanist and Catholic alike 3 . Some there certainly 
were among the Montanists who were not content with 
this view of the position occupied by their prophets, but 
the exceptions are not sufficient to lessen the importance 
of the testimony which they bear generally to the Chris- 
tian Scriptures 4 . 
3 . Manichce- The Montanists proposed to restore Christianity : the 
um " Manichaeans ventured to reconstruct it. Montanus pro- 

claimed the presence of the Paraclete : Mani himself 

C. 277 A.D. t x 

claimed to personify Him, and to lay open that perfect 
knowledge of which St Paul had spoken.- While assuming 
such a character it is more surprising that Mani received 
the Christian Scriptures in any sense than that he brought 
them to the test of a merely subjective standard. And it 
is an important symptom of the popular feeling of the 
time, that the Manichseans called in question the integrity 
and sometimes the authenticity of the Christian records, 
but not the authority of their writers. The grounds on 
which they did so are purely arbitrary, and their objec- 
tions are simple assertions without any external proof 5 . 
Probably they differed considerably among themselves in 
their estimation of the Canonical books 6 . Thus Augustine 

1 Adv. Prax. 13: Nos enim qui number of St Paul's Epistles in op- 
et tempera et causas scripturarum position to some Montanists (ewi- 
per Dei gratiam inspicimus maxime aTOfiLfav). Cf. Schwegler, Montan. 
Paracleti non hominum discipuli... 287 f. 

2 De Monog. 3 : Nihil novi Para- 5 Cf . Beausobre, Hist, de Manich. 
cletus inducit. Quod prsemonuit, I. pp. 297 sqq. 

definit : quod sustinuit, exposcit. 6 Beausobre is probably right in 

3 De Monog. 4 : Evolvamus com- supposing that they generally ac- ! 
munia instrumenta scripturarum cepted the Canon of the Peshito (1. 
pristinarum. pp. 294 sq.) ; but I do not think that 

4 Cf. Euseb. H. E. VI. 20. It is he is right in limiting (p. 292) the 
probable that Caius excluded the Epistolce Canonicce (Aug. c. Faust. 
Epistle to the Hebrews from the xxn. 15) to the Catholic Epistles, 



II.] Manichceism. 353 

states that they rejected the Acts of the Apostles as in- chap. nr. 
consistent with their belief in the character assumed by 
Mani 1 ; but this explanation is evidently insufficient, be- 
cause the Montanists received the book in spite of a similar 
difficulty, and several writers use it without hesitation in 
their controversies with Manichaeans 9 . Generally however 
he speaks of the Manichseans as admitting 'the New Tes- 
( tament/ c the four Gospels, and the Epistles of Paul,' in 
which must be included that to the Hebrews 3 ; but with- 
out insisting on this evidence, it is an important fact that 
they did not attempt to assail the Scriptures historically. 
On the contrary Augustine argues against them (and his 
reasoning gains force from his own conversion) that no 
writings can be proved genuine if' the books received as 
Apostolic be not so : that every kind of evidence combines 
to establish their claims, the rejection of which must be 
followed by universal historical scepticism 4 : that they had 
been circulated in the lifetime of their professed authors: 
that they had been received throughout the Church : that 
they were in the hands of all Christians: that they had 
been scrupulously guarded and attested from the age of 
the Apostles by an unbroken line of witnesses 5 . And thus 
the first critical assault on the authority of the New 
Testament called forth a noble assertion of its historic 
claims. 

though that is the later meaning of 4 Aug. de Mor. Eccl. Cath. 60 

the phrase, [xxix.] : Consequetur omnium litte- 

1 De Util. Cred. 7 [m.]. The Acts rarum summa perversio, et omnium 
was generally much less known in qui memorise raandati sunt librorum 
the East than the other books of the abolitio ; si quod tanta populorum 
New Testament. Cf. Beausobre, religione roboratum est, tanta ho- 
l. c. p. 293. minum et temporum consensione 

2 Cf. Lardner, II. 63. 4. firmatum, in banc dubitationem in- 

3 Aug. c. Faust. 11. 1 ; v. 1 : de ducitur, ut ne historiae quidem vul- 
Util. Cred. 7 [in.]. For the Epistle garis fidem possit gravitatemque ob- 
to the Hebrews, cf. Epiph. Hcer. tinere. 

LXVI. 74; supr. p. 348, n. 1 ; and, on 5 Aug. c. FavM.xxxn. 19: XXXIII. 

the other hand, Beausobre, I. p. 6. 

292. 

C. A A 



354 The Testimony of Heretical Writings. [part 



chap. in. 

The use of 
Apocrypha 
books by the 
Manichees. 



How these 
attest the 
Canon gene- 
rally. 



Other Apocry- 
phal writings- 



But while the Manichaeans admitted the original 
authority of the Scriptures of the New Testament, they 
appealed to other books for the confirmation of their doc- 
trines. When received into the Catholic Church they 
were required to abjure the use of numerous Apocryphal 
writings 1 ; and a bishop of the fifth century did not scruple 
to assert that they had either 'invented or corrupted every 
'Apocryphal book 2 / Without entering in detail into the 
parallels which the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and 
Apocalypses, offer to the Canonical Scriptures, it is evident 
that as a whole, like false miracles and false prophecies, 
they presuppose some authentic collection which deter- 
mined the shape and furthered the circulation of the copy. 
And that they are copies is evident from their internal 
character ; so that in one respect at least they are instruc- 
tive, as shewing what might have been expected from 
writings founded on tradition, even when shaped after an 
Apostolic pattern 3 . 

Besides the direct imitations of the Apostolic books 
there are two other Apocryphal writings which deserve 
notice because they represent no Canonical type, the Tes- 
taments of the Twelve Patriarchs and parts of the Sibylline 
Oracles. The Apostles were contented to recommend the 
Gospel to the Jews by the evidence of the Old Testament, 
to the heathen by the testimony of their own consciences, 
to both on the broad grounds of its own divine character. 
But it was natural that a succeeding generation should 



1 The whole formula (ap. Cotel. 
Pair. Apost. I. 537 sqq., referred to 
by Beausobre) is extremely inter- 
esting. The passage more directly 
bearing on our subject is: dvadeua- 
ri^w irdvra rd doypara ical avyypdp- 
ixara rod Mdv€vros...Kal irdaas rds 
MavLxai'Kas (3L(3\ovs, olov to veicpoiroibv 
abr&v evayyeXiov, oirep $Gbv KaXovai, 
/cat rbv dnaavpbv rod davdrov, §v \t- 



yov<ri Orpavpbv farjs, tcai rr]v koXov- 
i-ihnv f.iVO~rripiwv pi(3\ov....Kal rty t&v 
aTOKfticfMjOV, /cat ttjv tuv dwopvnpo- 
vevpLdrojv.„ 

2 Turibius, quoted by Beausobre, 
I. p. 348. 

3 Beausobre (r. pp. 348 sqq.) has 
given a general review of their con- 
tents ; and I have noticed them else- 
where. 



II.] The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 355 

look for more distinct intimations of the Hope of the chap. hi. 

world than are to be found in the symbolism of a nations 

history, or the^ indistinct confessions of hearts ill at rest. 

By what combination of fraud and enthusiasm the desire 

was gratified cannot be told, but the works which have 

been named represent the result 1 . In the Testaments of The Testa- 

, mentsofthe 

the Twelve Patriarchs and in some of the oibylhne Oracles Twelve Pa- 
the history of the Gospel is thrown into a prophetic form ; The sibylline 
and the general use made of the latter writings from the 0racles - 
time of Justin Martyr downwards shews how little any 
other age than that of the Apostles was able to originate 
or even to reproduce the simple grandeur of the New Tes- 
tament. Besides numerous allusions to the facts of the 
Gospels, and to very little else connected with the life of 
Christ 2 , these Apocryphal books contain several references 
to the Epistles and to the Apocalypse 3 . And one passage 
from the Testament of Benjamin expresses such a remark- 
able judgment on the mission and authority of St Paul as 
to deserve especial notice, particularly as the work itself 
comes from the hand of a Jewish Christian 4 . 

' I shall no longer/ the Patriarch says to his sons , 'be Testimony to 
' called a ravening wolf on account of your ravages, but a 
1 worker of the Lord, distributing goods to those who work 
' that which is good. And there shall arise from my seed 
1 in after times one beloved of the Lord, hearing His voice, 

1 The Testaments of the Twelve § 5 ; Apoc. xxi. Eph. iv. 25. Neph- 
Patriarchs are quoted by Origen thalim, §4; Eph. ii. 17. 

[Horn, in Jos. XV. 6). Friedlieb has Orac. Sibyll. I. 125 sqq. : 2 Pet. 

given a summary of the probable ii. 5. Lib. II. 167 sqq. ; 2 Thess. ii. 

dates of the Sibylline Oracles {Orac. S— 10. Lib. viii. 190 sqq ; Apoc. ix. 

Sibyll. EM. § 32). dbc. 

2 The fire in the Jordan at the Bap- 4 Dr Lightfoot (on Galatians, pp. 
tism of our Lord (cf. p. 138, n. 1) 299 ff.) has called attention to the 
is the only fact which occurs to me. remarkable combination in this book 
Orac. Sibyll. VI. 6. Cf. vn. 84. of Levitical views with a thankful 

3 Test. Reuben, § 5 ; 1 Cor. vi. 18. acknowledgment of the admission of 
Levi, § 3; Rom. xii. 1. § 6; t Thess. the Gentiles into the divine Cove- 
ii. 16. § 18; Hebr. vii. 22 — 24. 7s- aant. 

sackar,§ 7; t John v. 16, 17. Dan, 5 Test Benj. § n. 

A A % 



356 



The Testimony of Heathen Writers. [part 



chap. III. 



The evidence 
of the heathen 
opponents of 
Christianity. 



Celsus. 



'enlightening with new knowledge all the Gentiles,... and 
f till the consummation of the ages shall he be in the con- 
' gregations of the Gentiles, and among their princes, as a 
* strain of music in the mouth of them all. And he shall be 
' inscribed in the Holy Books, both his work and his word, 
1 and he shall be chosen of God for ever 1 ....' 

In addition to other evidence that of the heathen op- 
ponents of Christianity must not be neglected. Celsus, 
the earliest and most formidable among them, lived to- 
wards the close of the second century, and he had sought 
his knowledge of the Christian system in Christian books. 
He quotes the ' writings of the disciples of Jesus ' concern- 
ing His life as possessing unquestioned authority 2 ; and 
that these were- the four Canonical Gospels is proved both 
by the absence of all evidence to the contrary, and by the 
special facts which he brings forward 3 . And not only 
this, but both Celsus and Porphyry appear to have been 



1 It is perhaps impossible to fix 
with precision the date of the Pistis 
Sophia (ed. Schwartze et Petermann, 
Berlin, 185 1). Petermann describes 
it simply as ab Ophita quodam su- 
periori scriptum (Pref. p. vii.). It 
contains numerous references to the 
Gospels of St Matthew, St Luke, 
and St John; and once quotes St 
Paul (Eom. xiii. 7, p. 294). The 
only Apocryphal saying which I 
noticed in it is the well - known 
phrase attributed to our Lord, ' Be 
'ye wise money-changers' (p. 353); 
but of Philip it is said: iste est qui 
scribit res omnes quas Jesus dixit 
et quas fecit omnes (p. 69). 

2 Orig. c. Cels. II. 13, 74. In the 
latter passage the Jewish antagonist 
in Celsus' work says: TaOra fieu ovv 
VfAtit £k rdv ■ujuerepcov auyypafi/maTCjv 
e0' oh ovdevbs dXXov fidprvpos XPV~ 
tofxev, airol yap eavrols irepnriTreTe. 
Nothing could shew more clearly 
the authority of the Gospels. Ex- 
actly the same title (ret 7)/j.€T€pa <rvy~ 



ypdfxfxara) occurs in Justin Martyr, 
Apol. 1. 28. 

3 The title of Celsus' book was 
Aoyos a\r)dr)s, and Origen has an- 
swered it at length. The following 
references will be sufficient: Matt. 
ii., Orig. c. Cels. I. 34; Mark vi. 3, 
ib. vi. 36 (where Origen had a false 
reading) ; Luke iii., ib. II. 32 ; John 
xix. 34, ib. II. 36. Celsus evidently 
considered that the different Gospels 
were incorrect revisions of one ori- 
ginal; ib. II. 27 : fierd ravrd tlvcls 

TLOV 7TLO~T€v6l'TQ)V <p7)GLV . . .fX€TaX^pdr- 
T€LV €K T7JS 7Tpd)T7)S ypacf>rjS TO €Uay- 

yeXiov rpixv kclI rerpaxv Ka *i noXXaxy 

KQLL p,eTCL7r\dTT€LV 'Lv ^X 0L€V TpOS TOVS 

iXtyxovs apveiadat. To which Ori- 
gen replies : yuer axapdrrovr as to ei'- 
ayyeXiov aXXovs ovk olda rj tovs dirb 
MapKiuvos Kal rovs dirb OvaXevrivov, 
oTjmai 5£ Kal roi)s dvb AovKavov. All 
the facts which Origen quotes from 
Celsus are I believe contained in 
our Canonical Gospels ; yet cf. Orig. 
c. Cels. 11. 74. 



il] Conclusion of the Second Part. 357 

acquainted with the Pauline Epistles 1 . In Porplryry at chap. hi. 
least the influence of the Apostolic teaching can be dis- PoRPHY * Y - 
tinctly traced, for Christianity even in his time had done 
much to leaven the world which 'rejected it' 2 . 



TO pass once again from these details to a wider view, conclu- 
it is evident that the results of the last three chapters TiJmmmary 
confirm what was stated at the outset, that this second p/^<f com * 
period in the History of the Canon offers a marked con- 
trast to the first. It is characterized not so much by the its work to 
antagonism of great principles as by the influence of great nottoeu≠ 
men. But their work was to construct and not to define. 
And thus the age was an age of research and thought, but 
at the same time it was an age of freedom. The fabric of 
Christian doctrine was not yet consolidated, though the 
elements which had existed at first separately were already 
combined. An era of speculation preceded an era of coun- 
cils ; for it was necessary that all the treasures of the 
Church should be regarded in their various aspects before 
they could be rightly arranged. 

There was however among Christians a keen and ac- u was fertile 
tive perception of that ' one unchangeable rule of faith,' "ie™"*™ 16 ' '" 
which was embodied in the practice of the Church and 
attested by the words of Scripture. Apologists for Chris- 

1 Orig. c. CeU. I. 9; cf. 1 Cor. iii. little which bears on the Christian 
to, 1 Pet. iii. 15. ib. v. 64; cf. Gal. Scriptures. Lucian in his True Bis- 
vi. 14. Porphyr. ap. Hieron. Comm. tory (11. 11 sqq.) gives a poor iraita- 
in Galat. i. 15, 16 (T. iv. p. 233); tion of Apoc. xxi. But the striking 
ii. 11 (ib. p. 244). description which Aristides (ad 

2 Cf. TJllmann, Stud. u. Krit. v. Plat. n. T. 11. pp. 398 sqq. Df.) 
376 sqq. His beautiful Letter to draws of the Christians is well wor- 
Marcella (ed. Mai, Mediol. 18 16), thy of notice, especially when com- 
the climax of philosophic morality, pared with Lucian's (de Peregr. 11. 
offers nevertheless a complete con- 13). Longinus' testimony to the 
trast to the Christian doctrine of the eloquence of ' Paul of Tarsus ' (fr. 
dignity of man's body. 1, eck Weiske) is generally consider- 
In other heathen writers there is ed spurious. 



358 Conclusion of the Second Part [part 

concltj- tianity were followed by advocates of. its ancient purity 

SION 

even in the most remote districts of the Roman world. 
In addition to the writers who have been mentioned 
already, Eusebius has preserved the names of many others 
'from an innumerable crowd/ which in themselves form a 
striking monument of the energy of the Church. Philip 
in Crete, Bacchylus at Corinth, and Palmas in Pontus, 
defended the primitive Creed against the innovations of 
heresy 1 . And the list might be easily increased; but it is 
enough to shew that the energy of Christian life was not 
confined to the great centres of its action, or to the men 
who gave their character to its development. The whole 
body was instinct with a sense of truth and ready to 
maintain it. 
didtoT^rmte Yet even controversy failed to create a spirit of histo- 
rism™ crUl ' r i ca l inquiry. Tertullian once alludes to synodal discus- 
sions on the Canon 2 , but as a general rule it was assumed 
by Christian writers that the contents of the New Testa- 
ment were known and acknowledged. Where differences 
existed on this point, as in the case of the Marcionites, no 
attempt was made to compose them by a critical investi- 
nomVresuit^ g&tion into the history of the sacred records. And in the 
Church itself no voice of authority interfered to remove 
the doubts which formerly existed, however much they 
were modified by usage and by the judgment of particular 
writers. The age was not only constructive but conser- 
vative; ''and thus the evidence for the New Testament 
Canon, which has been gathered from writers of the third 
century, differs from that of earlier date in fulness rather 

the old are . ,-i • i • i 

strongly con- than in Kind. 



gwrdsthflt But the fulness of evidence for the acknowledged 
Books* ge books, coming from every quarter of the Church and 

1 Euseb. H E. iv. 23, 25, 28; v c 2 Tert. de Pudic. 10. See supr. 

2. 23. -n. 2-28. n. 1. 



22, 23. p. 328, n. 



ii.] Conclusion of the Second Part. 359 

given with unhesitating simplicity, can surely be explain- °§JJJjJ lU " 
ed on no other ground than that it represented an original 
tradition or an instinctive judgment of Apostolic times. 
While on the' other hand the books which were not uni- the Disputed 

Books, ai"l 

versally received seem to have been in most cases rather 
unknown than rejected. The Apocalypse alone was made 
the subject of a controversy, and that purely on internal 
testimony 1 . For it is well worthy of notice that the dis- 
puted books (with the exception of the second Epistle of 
St Peter, the history of which is most obscure) are exactly 
those which make no direct claims to Apostolic author- 
shijD, so that they might have been excluded from the 
Canon even by some who did not doubt their genuineness. 
In the meantime Apocryphal writings had passed almost *%£H£** 
out of notice, and no one can suppose that they were any 
longer confounded with the Anostolic books. Nothing 
more indeed was needed than that some practical crisis 
should give clear effect to the implicit opinion which was 
everywhere held; and this, as we shall see in the next 
chapter, was soon furnished by the interrogations of the' 
last persecutor. ^ • 

1 It is a satisfaction to find that by that of Miinster in a special tract 

the opinion which I have given on on the subject: de Dionys. Alex. 

the testimonies of Caius and Diony- Judic. c. Apocal. Hafniae, 1826, pp. 

sius (pp. 245, n. i, 319 f .) is confirmed 35 sqq., 67 sqq. 



THIRD PERIOD. 

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 

FROM THE PERSECUTION OF DIOCLETIAN TO 

THE THIRD COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE. 

a.d. 303 — 397. 



Solis eis Script urarum libris qui jam Canonici appellantur 
didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre ut nullum eorum 
auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. 

A UGVSTINUS. 



CHAPTER L 

THE AGE OF DIOCLETIAX. 



'EttXtipuOtj to Hup ijXdop pa\e?v iirl tt)v y9}v ovk 6.<paj>L<TTiK.bv dXKa 

KCLdapTlKOV. 

ATHAXASIUS. 



THOUGH we do not possess any public Acts of the chap. i. 
Ante-Nicene Church relative to the Canon, yet the ^ v 7d£>cu- 
zeal of its enemies has in some degree supplied the defi- ^npartagatut 
ciency. During the long period of repose which the fcrflturel^'' 
Christians enioyed after the edict of Gallienus, the cha- and so 

. . . a6iA.UL 

meter and claims of their sacred writings became more 

generally known 1 , and offered a definite mark to their 

adversaries. 'Diocletian skilfully availed himself of this 

new point of attack. The earlier persecutors had sought 

to deprive the Church of its teachers: he endeavoured to 

destroy the writings which were the unfailing source of its 

faith. Hierocles proconsul of Bithynia is said to have 303—311 ad. 

originated and directed the persecution 2 ; and his efforts 

were the more formidable because he was well acquainted 

with the history and doctrines of Christianity. 

The first result of this persecution was to create dis- 



sensions within the Church itself. A large section of 

1 Cf. Lact. Instit. V. 2 : Alius eadem discipline fuisse videatur.. 

[ Hierocles]... qusedain capita [Scrip- pnecipue tamen Paulum Petruraque 

turae Sacrse] quae repugnare sibi vide- laceravit... 

bantur exposuit, adeo multa, adeo * Lact. Instit. I. c. De Mort. Per- 

intima enumerans, ut aliquando ex sec. 16. 



364 The Age of Diocletian. [part 

chap. i. Christians availed themselves of the means of escape 
of dissensions offered by lenient magistrates, and surrendered ' useless 
christians 'writings 1 ' which satisfied the demands of their inquisitors. 
necessarily Others however viewed this conduct with reasonable jea- 
lousy, and branded as 'traitors' (traditores) those who 
submitted to the semblance of guilt to avoid the trials of 
persecution. And the differences which arose on the 
question became deep and permanent. For more than 
three hundred years the schism of the Donatists remained 
to witness to the intensity and bitterness of the contro- 

to a clearer m ^ 

determination yersy. But schism as well as persecution furthered the 

of the Canon- J - 1 

icai Books, work of God. Henceforth the Canonical Scriptures were 
generally known by that distinctive title, even if it was 
not then first applied to them 2 . Both parties in the 
Church naturally combined to distinguish the sacred writ- 
ings from all others. The stricter Christians required 
clear grounds for visiting the traditores with Ecclesiastical 
censure 3 ; and the more pliant were anxious not to com- 
promise their faith, while they were willing to purchase 
peace by obedience in that which seemed to be indif- 
ferent. 
But at least But though it is evident that an ecclesiastical Canon 

ofaCaZn must have been formed before the close of the persecution 
existed before, of Diocletian, it is not to be concluded that no such Rule 
existed before. The original edict which enjoined that 
'the Churches should be razed, and the Scriptures con- 
sumed by fire... 4 ' is unhappily lost; and Christian writers 
describe its provisions in words intelligible and definite to 
themselves, but little likely to have been used by a hea- 

1 Cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. I. p. 205. 2 Cf. App. A. Credner, a. a. 0. 

August. Brev. Coll. Donat. in. 25; 3 Ooncil. Areiat. xin. : De his qui 

c. Oresc. in. 30. Credner (Zur scripturas sanctas tradidisse dicun- 

Gesch. d. K. s. 66) gives another in- tur...ut quicunque eorum ex actis 

terpretation to scriptures supervacuce publicis fuerit detectus... 

in the Acts of Felix. 4 Euseb. H. E. vin. 2. 



III.] 



The Donatists. 



365 



then Emperor. There can however be no doubt that it chap, i 
contained an accurate description of the books to be sur- 
rendered, and the official records of two trials consequent 
upon it seem to have preserved the exact phrase which 
was employed. 'Bring forward/ the Roman commissioner 
said to the bishop Paul, 'the Scriptures of the Law.' And 
Csecilian writing to another bishop Felix says, ( Ingentius 
' inquired whether any Scriptures of your Law were burnt 
'according to the sacred .law 1 .' Now whether this title 
was of Christian or heathen origin it evidently had a 
meaning sufficiently strict and clear for the purposes of a 
Roman court : in other words the books which the Chris- 
tians called 'divine' and 'spiritualizing' (deificce), which 
were publicly read in their assemblies and guarded wdth 
their most devoted care, were formed into a collection so 
well known that they could be described by a title scarcely 
more explicit than that by which it was afterwards called 
'the Bible' (ra fiiBxia). ' 

And what then were the contents of that collection? £■*.«*«*** 

L (IfiOfl IV CIS 

The answer to this question must be sought for in the ^llfthTca- 
results of the persecution. No district suffered more l^fLcutZn 
severely than North Africa, where schism continued the in 

• • -r\ i. Africa— 

ravages which persecution began. Donatus placed himself The Donatists. 
at the head of a party who opposed the appointment of 
CaBcilian to the see of Carthage on the ground that he 



1 Acta ap. Mansi, Concil. n. 501 
(Florent. 1759) ; August. T. ix. 
App. p. 29 (ed. Bened.) : Felix Fla- 
men perpetuus curator Paulo epi- 
scopo dixit : Proferte scripturas legis, 
et si quid aliud hie habetis, ut prae- 
ceptum est, ut prsecepto et jussioni 
parere possitis. Paulus episcopus 
dixit : Scripturas lectores habent, 
sed nos quod hie habemus damus. 
Afterwards the command is simply 
Proferte scripturas. ib. p. 509 (T. ix. 
App. p. 18) : Caecilianus parenti Fe- 



lici salutem : Cum Ingentius colle- 
gammeum Augentium amicum suum 
eonveniret et inquisisset anno duo- 
viratus mei, an aliquas script urce legis 
vestrce secundum sacram legem adusta? 
sint... (These passages are quoted by 
Credner, a. a. 0.). A similar phrase 
occurs also in Augustine, Ps. c. Do- 
nat. T. IX. p. 3 B : Erant quidam 
traditores librorum de sacra lege. Cf. 
Commod. Ivst. 1. Pref. 6. On the 
relation of the words lex, regula, 
and Kavwv, see Credner, I. c. 



366 



The Age of Diocletian. 



[part 



CHAP. I. 



ii. Syria — 
Eusebius. 

C. 270 — 340 A.D, 



had been ordained by Felix a traditor; and, in spite of 
the judgment of a Synod, confirmed by Constantine, the 
rupture became complete. The ground of the Donatist 
schism was thus the betrayal of the Canonical Scriptures, 
and the Canon of the Donatists will necessarily represent 
the strict judgment of the African Churches. Now Augus- 
tine allows that both Donatist and Catholic were alike 
* bound by the authority of both Testaments V and that 
they admitted alike the ' Canonical Scriptures 2 .' 'And 
' what are these,' he asks, e but the Canonical Scriptures 
1 of the Law and the Prophets ? To which are added the 
' Gospels, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, 
1 the Apocalypse of John 3 .' The only doubt which can be 
thrown on the completeness and purity of the Donatist 
Canon arises from the uncertain language of Augustine 
about the Epistle to the Hebrews, and no Donatist writing 
throws any light upon the point 4 . But with this uncer- 
tain exception the ordeal of persecution left the African 
Churches in possession of a perfect New Testament. 

From Africa we pass to Palestine. Among the wit- 
nesses of the persecution there was Eusebius the friend of 
Pamphilus, afterwards bishop of Gsesarea, and the historian 
of the early Church. 'I saw,' he says, 'with mine own 
' eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razed to their 
' foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures con- 
f signed to the fire in the open market-place 5 .' Among 
such scenes he could not fail to learn what books men 
held to be more precious than their lives, and it is reason- 



** August. Ep, cxxix. 3. 

2 Aug. c. Cresc. I. 37 : Proferte 
certe...de scripturis Canonicis [qua- 
rum nobis est communis auctoritas] 
...The last clause, if it be of doubt- 
ful authority in this place, occurs 
without any variation at the end of 
the chapter. 

3 De Unit. Eccles, 51 [xix.]. 



4 The only disputed books which 
Tichonius (Aug. c. Ep. Parm. T. ix. 
p. n) quotes are, so far as I have 
noticed, the second Epistle of St 
John (Gallandi, Bill. Pp. vin. p. 
124), and the Apocalypse (ib. pp. T07, 
122, 125, 128). 

5 fir. e. vin. 2. 



in. j Eusebius. SG7 

able to look for the influence of this early trial on his later chap. i. 
opinions. But the great fault of Eusebius is a want of ulscha " ! 
independent judgment. He writes under the influence of 
his last informant, and consequently his narrative is often 
confused and inconsistent. This is the case in some degree 
with his statements on the Canon, though it is possible I 
believe to ascertain his real judgment on the question, 
and to remove some of the discrepancies by which it is 
obscured. 

The manner in which he approaches the subject illus- His first ac- 

i m t . count of the 

trates very well the desultory character of his work. He Apostolic 

ii • i»t* Canon. 

records the succession of Linus to the see of Rome 'after 
1 the martyrdom of Peter and Paul/ and without any 
further preface proceeds 1 : 'Of 'Peter then one Erjistle, writings of 

• i • t- » i Si Peter and 

1 which is called his former Epistle, is generally acknow- 
1 ledged ; of this also the ancient presbyters have made 
' frequent use (fcaraKe^prjvTaL) in their writings as indis- 
1 putably genuine (avafi<j)i\ifCT<p). But that which is cir- 
f culated as his second Epistle we have received to be not 
1 Canonical (ivSiddrjfcov) ; still as it appeared useful to 
1 many it has been diligently read (icnrovhaaOrj) with the 
' other scriptures. The Book of the Acts of Peter and the 
' Gospel which bears his name, and the book entitled his 
' Preaching, and his so-called Apocalypse, we know to 
' have been m nowise included in the Catholic 2 scriptures 
1 by antiquity (ouS' o\&>9 iv Ka0o\ifcoi$ lajxev irapahihc- 
' fieva), because no ecclesiastical writer in ancient times or 
1 in our own has made general use of {crvve^prjaaro) the 
'testimonies to be drawn from them... So many are the 
c works which bear the name of Peter, of which I recog- 

1 H. E. in. 3. The title of the 2 i. e. Canonical. This use of the 

Chapter is : Uepl tui> €ttlgto\lcv rCbv word kclOoXikos is illustrated by Con- 

aTroo-TQkuv, yet he makes no allusion cil. Carthag. XXIV. Int. Gr. (given 

to the Epistles of St John, and di- in Af>p. D). 
gresses to other writings. 



368 The Age of Diocletian. [part 

chap. i. f nize (eyvcov) one Epistle only as genuine (yvrjcriav) and 
' acknowledged by the ancient presbyters.' 

of st Paul. ' Of Paul the fourteen epistles commonly received (at 

' Se/carecrcrape?) are at once manifest (TrpoByXoi) and clear. 
' It is not however right to ignore the fact that some have 
' rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, asserting that it is 
'gainsayed by the Church of Rome as not being Paul's... 
1 The Acts that bear his name I have not received as in- 
f disputably genuine/ 

The shepherd < Since the same Apostle in the salutations at the end 

of II er mas. m x 

' of the Epistle to the Romans has made mention among 
' others of Hermas, whose the Shepherd is said to be, it 
' must be known that this book has been gainsayed by 
' some, and therefore could not be considered an acknow- 
' ledged book, though it has been judged by others 
' most necessary for those who particularly need elemen- 
' tary instruction in the faith {aroi^eicoaeco^ elaaycoyiKrjs;). 
[ In consequence of this we know that it has been formerly 
c publicly read (SeSTjj^oaLevjuievov) in churches, and I have 
' found that some of the most ancient writers have made 
' use of it/ 

'These remarks will help to point out (ek irapaaraatv) 
( the divine writings which are uncontrovertible (avavrip- 
' prjrcov) and those which are not acknowledged by all/ 
Howheconti- After this Eusebius continues the thread of his history, 

nues Ins nar- # *> 

rativetiiihe relating at length the siege of Jerusalem, and the suc- 
cession of bishops in the Apostolic sees, till he comes to 
speak of the reign of Trajan and of the last labours of 
the Apostle St John. While doing this he quotes from 
Clement the beautiful story of the young robber, and 
then goes on abruptly to enumerate 'the uncontroverted 

the writings of < writings of the Apostle/ His Gospel is placed first 

St John, and - . , , 

as being fully recognized 'in all the churches under 
'heaven;' and so Eusebius proceeds to speak of the other 



in.] Eusebius. 3G9 

Gospels, prefacing his criticism with some remarks on ciiap. i. 
Apostolic gifts which illustrate his view of Inspiration \ "{rZiSZike 
' Those inspired and truly divine men {Qeairecnoi fcal Go8pel8 - 
' akrjOccs 6 eoir petrels), I mean the Apostles of Christ, hav- 
ing been completely purified in their life, and adorned 
' with every virtue in their souls, though still simple and 
' illiterate in their speech (rrjv y\ooo-o~av ISicorevovres), yet 
' trusting boldly to the divine and marvellous power given 
' them by the Saviour, had not indeed either the know- 
ledge or the design to commend the teaching of their 
' Master by subtilty and rhetorical art, but using only the 
' demonstration of the divine Spirit, who wrought with 
c them, and the wonder-working power of Christ realized 
' through them, proclaimed the knowledge of the kingdom 
' of heaven over all the world (olfcov/jLevrjv), giving little 
* heed to the labour of written composition (aTrovSrjs rrjs 
' Trepl to \oyoypa(j>eLv). And this they did as being wholly 
' engaged (e^vTr^peTovfievot) in a greater and superhuman 
' ministry. For example Paul who shewed himself the 
'most powerful of all in the means of eloquence and the 
' most able in thought has not committed to writing more 
'than his very short letters, although he had countless 
' mysteries to tell, as one who attained to a vision of things 
' in the third heaven, and was caught up to the divine 
' paradise itself, and was counted worthy to hear unspeak- 
■ able words from those who had been transported thither. 
{ The rest of the immediate followers ($>0LT7)TaL) of the 
' Saviour, twelve Apostles and seventy disciples and in- 
' numerable others besides, were in some degree blessed 
'with the same privileges... still Matthew and John alone 
1 of all have left us an account [of their intercourse with 
'the Lord]../ After this Eusebius discusses the mutual 
relations of the Gospels, promising a more special inves- 

1 H. E. in. 24. 
C. BB 



370 



The Age of Diocletian. 



[part 



chap. i. tigation in some other place, a promise which, like many 
others, he left unfulfilled. He then continues : ' Now of 
' the writings of John, in addition to the Gospel, the for- 
N ' mer of his Epistles also has been acknowledged as un- 
' doubtedly genuine both by the winters of our own time 
? and by those of antiquity; but the two remaining Epistles 
' are disputed. Concerning the Apocalypse men's opinions 
' even now" are generally divided. This question however 
c shall be decided at a proper time by the testimony of 
c antiquity 1 / There is nothing to shew that Eusebius car- 
ried his intention into effect, and without further break he 
proceeds 2 : 'But now we have arrived at this point, it is 
' natural that we should give a summary catalogue of the 
f writings of the New Testament to which we have already 
c alluded 3 . First then we must place the Holy quaternion 
c of the Gospels, which are followed by the account of the 
'Acts of the Apostles. After this we must reckon the 
c Epistles of Paul ; and next to them we must maintain as 
'genuine (/cvpcoTeov) the Epistle circulated (fyepopbevrj) as 
' the former 4 of John, and in like manner that of Peter. 
' In addition to these books, if possibly such a view seem 
1 correct 5 , we must place the Revelation of John, the judg- 
' ments on which we shall set forth in due course. And 
' these are regarded as generally received (iv opioXoyov- 
' fjuevoLs). 
(is) TheDis- 'Anions the controverted books, which are neverthe- 



sums up his 
opinions on 
the books of 
the New Tes- 
tament. 

(a) The Ac- 
knowledged 

Books. 



1 The scattered testimonies which 
he quotes from Justin (iv. 18), Theo- 
philus (iv. 24), Irenaeus (v. 8), Ori- 
gen (vi. 25), and Dionysius (vn. 25), 
can scarcely be considered to satisfy 
this promise. 

2 H. E. in. 25. 

Oeicras rrjs kclivtjs diaOrjKns ypcupds. 
It seems incredible that there should 
have been any difference of opinion 
as to the meaning of the phrase. 



Eusebius had mentioned before all 
the books of the New Testament 
which he here accepts : Four Gos- 
pels, in. 24 ; Acts, 11. 22 ; fourteen 
Epistles of St Paul, in. 3 ; seven 
Catholic Epistles, 11. 23 ad fin.; 
Apocalypse, ill. 24. 

4 Hporepa not Trpdorr}. Cf. pp. 6$, 
n. 4 ; 336, n. 3. 

5 Ei' ye (paveln. The difference 
between this and el (paueirj below 
must not be left unnoticed. 



III.] 



Eusebius. 



371 



'less well known and recognized by most 1 , we class the chap. t. 
'Epistle circulated under the name of James, and that f putedy>WtV; 
' Jude, as well as the second of Peter, and the so-called known. 
' second and third of John, whether they really belong to 
' the Evangelist, or possibly to another of the same name. 

c We must rank as spurious (yoOoi) the account of the 2. Spurious. 
1 Acts of Paul, the book called the Shepherd, and the Re- 
' velation of Peter. And besides these the epistle circu- 
1 lated under the name of Barnabas, and the Teaching of 
' the Apostles ; and moreover, as I said, the Apocalypse of 
1 John, if such an opinion seem correct {el (fxtveirj), which 
'some, as I said, reject {aOerovai), while others reckon it 
' among the books generally received. We may add that 
' some have reckoned in this division the Gospel according 
'to the Hebrews, to which those Hebrews who have re- 
' ceived [Jesus as] the Christ are especially attached. All 
'these then will belong to the class of controverted books 2 . 

' It has been necessary for us to exteud our catalogue 
' to these, in spite of their ambiguous character {tovtcov 
' o/jLcqs top fcaraXoyov ireiroir]ybeQa), having distinguished 
' the writings which according to the ecclesiastical tradition 
' are true and genuine {aif\acrTov^) , and generally acknow- 
' ledged 3 , and the others besides these, which, though they 
' are not Canonical {ivScaOrj/covs) but controverted, are 



Heretical 
Books. 



1 TvcjpifjLcov ro?s woWoTs. Cf. H. 
E. in. 38. The word yvupiixos im- 
plies a familiar knowledge. It is 
a singular coincidence that Alex. A- 
phrod. (deAn. 2, quoted by Stephens) 
uses it in connexion with another 
Eusebian word. Speaking of Time 
and Place he says : to fiev elvat 

yVlbpllJLOV KCtl CLVCLfJLCplXeKTOV. 

2 The complete omission of the 
first Epistle of Clement in this de- 
tailed enumeration is very instruc- 
tive as marking the principles on 
wdiich Eusebius made it. The genu- 
ineness of the Epistle was acknow- 



ledged, but it was not Apostolic. 
Thus it could not make any substan- 
tial claim to be included among the 
books of the Canon if Apostolicity 
was the final test of the authority of 
a book. On the other hand it may 
be noticed that Eusebius himself 
using popular language calls the 
Epistle a 'disputed book' elsewhere. 
Seep. 373, n. 1. 

3 'Ai>u/JLo\oy7}[j.€i>ovs. 'Avo/uoXoye?- 
o~6cu differs from ofjLo\oyeiadai in 
bringing out the notion of examina- 
tion, inquiry, 'and judgment. Cf. 
If. E. ill. 3, 24, 38; IV. 7. 

BB2 



372 



The Age of Diocletian, 



[PAET 



chap. i. ' nevertheless constantly recognized {ycyvcoo-fcojuieva^) by 
' most of our ecclesiastical authorities (i/cfcXTjcrLao-TiKoov), 
' that we might be acquainted with these scriptures, and 
' with those which are brought forward by heretics in the 
1 name of Apostles, whether it be as containing the Gospels 
f of Peter and Thomas and Matthias, or also of others 
' besides these, or as the Acts of Andrew and John and 
'the other Apostles, which no one of the succession of 
1 ecclesiastical writers has anywhere deigned to quote. 
'And further also the character of their language (<fipd- 
' cre&)?) which varies from the Apostolic spirit (irapd to 
c rjOos to (XTroGToXucbv evaWaTTet), and the sentiment and 
'purpose of their contents, which is utterly discordant 
f with true orthodoxy, clearly prove that they are forgeries 
■ of heretics; whence we must not even class them among 
'the spurious (ybOoii) books, but set them aside (irapaiTr)- 
' Teov) as every way monstrous and impious.' 

This last passage in which Eusebius professes to sum 
up what he had previously said upon the subject, however 
imperfect and vague it may appear in some respects, forms 
the centre to which all his other statements on the books 
of the New Testament must be referred. Here, instead of 
quoting the authority of others, he writes in his own per- 
son, and implies I believe his own judgment on the dis- 
puted books 1 . In order to determine what this was, it 
will be necessary to analyse briefly the classification which 
. he proposes. And at the outset it is evident, I think, that 
he divides all the writings which laid claim to Apostolic 
Three classes . authority into three principal divisions — the Acknow- 
tinguished in ledged, the Disputed, and the Heretical. But these words, 
it must be remembered, are used with reference to a par- 



This last pas 
sage must in- 
terpret the 
others. 



1 In treating of the Eusebian 
Canon, I can only give the conclu- 
sions at which I have arrived. The 
best separate essay on it which I 



know is that of Liicke (Berlin, 
1816), which is not however by any 
means free from faults. 



in.] Eusebius. 373 

ticular object, and consequently in a modified sense 1 . That chap. i. 
a book should be Acknowledged as Canonical, it was re- 
quisite that its authenticity should be undisputed, and 
that its author should have been possessed of Apostolic 
power; if it were supposed to fail in satisfying either of 
these conditions, then it was Disputed, however well it 
satisfied the other. 

With regard to the first and last classes there can be 
little ambiguity as to the limits which Eusebius would set 
to them generally; the position of the Apocalypse (for a 
reason which will be shortly seen) being left in some un- 
certainty. But considerable doubt has been felt as to the the second 

• • pi it i class is a wi n 

exact extent and definition of the second class, though the subdivided 

,.,., into two 

words at the beginning and end of the paragraph m which others. 
the disputed books are enumerated, clearly state that they 
were all included under one comprehensive title. Yet it 
does not therefore follow that all the books included in 
the second class were on the same footing; for on the con- 
trary this class itself is subdivided into two other classes, 
containing respectively such books as were generally 
though not universally recognized, and such as Eusebius 
joronounced to be Spurious, that is deficient in one or 
other of the marks of an acknowledged book. There are 
traces even of a further subdivision; for this latter class 
again is made up of subordinate groups, determined, as it 
appears, by the common character which fixed their posi- 



1 Thus under different aspects the authority somewhat different (Comm. 

same book may be differently de- in Joan. xiil. 17) : ...e£erdfoj>res 

scribed. The first Epistle of Cle- irepl rod (3l(3\lov [rod KTjpvy pharos Ile- 

ment for instance is called acknow- Tpov] iroTepbv irore yprjcnoif icmv 7) 

ledged, when the question of genu- vbdov 7) puktov — a genuine work, a 

ineness only is at issue (Euseb. H. spurious work falsely inscribed with 

E. ill. 16, 38) ; but disputed, with St Peter's name, or a work contain - 

regard to Canonicity (H. E. VI. 13). ing partly true records of St Peter's 

See p. 371, n. 2. teaching, partly spurious additions 

Origen once adopts a triple divi- to it. 
sion of books claiming Apostolic 



374 



The Age of Diocletian. 



[part 



chap. i. tion: the first group, containing the Acts of Paul, the 
Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, was not genuine ; 
the second, containing the Epistle of Barnabas 1 and the 
Doctrines of the Apostles, was not Apostolic. And if this 
view be correct the ambiguous statement as to the Apoca- 
lypse becomes intelligible, because it was undoubtedly a 
genuine work of John; and if that John were identical 
with the Apostle, then it satisfied both the conditions re- 
quisite to make it an acknowledged book : otherwise, like 
the letter of Barnabas, it was spurious 2 . 

According to this view of the passage then it appears 



1 In speaking of Barnabas the 
companion of St Paul Eusebius takes 
no notice of the Epistle, and he no- 
where attributes it to him (H. E. I. 
12; 11. 1; vi. 13). Cf. p. 37f. 

2 Though Eusebius does not here 
use the word diroKpv(pos, yet as he 
elsewhere applies it (H. E. iv. 11 ad 
fin.) to the books fabricated by here- 
tics, it will be well to trace its mean- 
ing briefly : 

i. The original sense is clearly 
set apart from sight as distinguished 
from the simple hidden (kpvtttos), 
the notion of separation or removal 
being brought prominently forward. 
Cf. Sirac. xlii. 12 (9): dvydrnp irarpl 
diroKpvcpos ay pvirvla. Gen. xxiv. 43 
(Aq.) ; Dan. xi. 43 (Theod.) ; Col. ii. 
3; Mark iv. 22; Luke viii. [7: 
comp. Matt. xi. 25 ; xxv. 18 ; Luke 
x. 21; 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Eph. iii. 9 ; 
Col. i. 26 (diroKp^TTTeLv opposed to 
(pavepovv) . 

. ii. From this sense various others 
branch out corresponding to the seve- 
ral motives which may occasion the 
concealment. As applied to books, 
Concealment might be caused by 
their 

(a) Esoteric value, as containing 
the secrets of a religion or an art. 
Cf. Ex. vii. ii, 22 (Symm.) ; Suid. 
in Pherecyde (quoted by Stephens) : 
rjo-Krjae d£ iavrbu Krvaafxevos tcl 
QolvUwv aTTOKpv<pa /3t/3Aia. As such 



heretics brought forward writings 
under the names of Prophets and 
Apostles ; cf. Orig. Comm. Ser. in 
Matt. § 28. 

(j8) Mysterious or ambiguous cha- 
racter, as containing that which spe- 
cially needs interpretation or correc- 
tion from its difficulty or imperfec- 
tion. Cf. Sirac. xxxix. 3, 7 (Xen. 
Memor. ill. 5. 14 ; Conv. viii. 11). 
In the first sense the word is applied 
to the Revelation by Gregory of 
Nyssa (Or at. in Or din. suam, T. 1. 
p. 876, ed. Par. 1615) : TJKovcra rod 
evayye\i<TTod 'Iwdvvov iv diroKpixpOLS 
di alvly/jLaros \iyovros...* and in 
the other commonly to the so-called 
Apocri pha of the Old Testament. 
Cf . Orig. Prol. in Cant. s. f. 

(7) In the last sense the word 
offered a contrast to dedrj/noaievfiivos, 
and so came to be applied to books 
wholly set aside from the use of the 
Church. Thus it is first used by 
Irenaeus, c. Hcer. 1. 20 (with some 
allusion probably to the claims made 
by the writers of the books ; cf. 
Clem. Strom. I. 15. 69): djuvdyrov 
ir\rjdos aTroKpvcpcov ical vbduv ypa(pGv 
as avrol ^wXaaap irapeL<T(p£pov<jiv' 
Athanat. Ep. Fest. (KavoviCofieva, 
dvaytvuHTKO/ULeva, dirbKpvcpa) ; Cyril. 
Catech. IV. 36. Cf. Schleusner, Lex. 
Vet. Test, and Suicer s. v. ; and Reuss, 
Gesch. der Heil. Schrift. § 318. 



in.] Eusebius. 375 

that Eusebius received as 'Divine Scriptures' the Acknow- chap. i. 
ledged books, adding to them the other books in our pre- 
sent Canon, and no others, on the authority of most writers, General view 

0/ his Canon 

with this single exception, that he was undecided as to the of the yew 

01 , . Testament, 

authorship of the Apocalvpse. It remains for us to in- supported by 

± L •* * u ill isolated testi- 

quire how far this general judgment is supported by the monies to 
isolated notices of the different books scattered throughout 
his writings. 

It will be noticed that in the general summary no spe- 
cial mention is made of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but in fle Epistle to 

r i . the Hebrews, 

the first quotation it is expressly attributed to St Paul ; 
and though Eusebius elsewhere speaks of it as among the 
Disputed books 1 , numerous quotations prove that he re- 
garded it as substantially St Paul's, even if it had been 
translated by St Luke, or fas he was more inclined to be- 
lieve) by Clement of Rome 2 . With regard to the Catholic the Catholic 

JuptstLes 

Epistles, after speaking of the martyrdom of James the of st James 
Just he says 3 : 'The first of the Epistles styled Catholic is and generally 
' said to be his. But I must remark that it is held to be 
'spurious (voOeverac). Certainly not many old writers 
'have mentioned it, nor yet the Epistle of Jude, which 
' is also one of the seven Epistles called Catholic. But KJ^ "^^ 
'nevertheless we know that these have been publicly 
'used with the rest in most Churches/ This again is 
thoroughly consistent with his summary; for the allusion 
to the order of the Catholic Epistles, and to their definite 
number (seven), shews that even such as were disputed 
were distinguished from those which he likewise calls clis- 

1 H. E. vi. 13 : Kixpyrat, 5' [6 <f>r)(riv Hebr. i. 5. So ib. ill. 23 : 
K.\r)/n]s]...Ta'is dirb tCjv avTiXeyofxe- & dav/j.do~ios diroaroXos' Hebr. iv. 14. 
vwv ypacpQi> fjt.apTvpiais.,.Kal ttjs irpbs c. Marc, de Eccl. Theol. I. 20 : Kal 
'E,3paiovs eirLo~To\7)s, rrjs re Bapi>d(3a dpx<-epea dt avrbv 6 avrbs d,7r6crro\os 
/cat K\r)fJL€VTOs /cat 'lovda. [IlaOXo?] diroKaXei Xiyuv Hebr. iv. 

2 H. E. in. 38. For his use of 14 ; c. Marc. 11. 1. Comm. in Ps. 
the Epistle, see Eclog. Proph. 1. 20 (ed. Montfaucon, Par, 1706) I. 175 
(ed. Gaisf. Oxf. 1842): 6 dwoaToXos sqr, 248, d-c. 

...ev rfj irpbs 'Ejlpaiovs cvvTa^ei... 3 H. E. n. 23. 



376 



The Age of Diocletian. 



[part 



CHAP. I. 



to the Apoca- 
lypse. 



Result of the 
chapter. 



pitted when mentioning the opinions of others, but spurious 
when expressing his own. It is more important to insist 
on this testimony, because though Eusebius has made use 
of the Epistle of St James in many places 1 , yet I am not 
aware that he ever quotes the Epistle of St Jude, the 
second Epistle of St Peter, or the two shorter Epistles of 
St John 2 . 

The Apocalypse alone remains ; and with regard to 
this book, the same uncertainty as marks Eusebius , judg- 
ment on its Apostolicity characterizes his use of it, though 
he shews a certain inclination to abide by the testimony 
of antiquity. ' It is likely,' he says in one place, ' that the 
' [vision of the] Apocalypse circulated under the name of 
' John was seen by the second John [the presbyter], un- 
' less any one be willing to believe tha/t it was seen by 
'the first [the Apostle] 3 ;' and he quotes it (though rarely 
in respect of its importance) simply as the ' Apocalypse of 
' John 4 .' 

From all this it is evident that the testimony of Eu- 
sebius marks a definite step in the history of the Canon, 
and exactly that which it was reasonable to expect from 
his position. The books of the New Testament were form- 
ed into distinct collections — f a quaternion of Gospels,' 
'fourteen Epistles of St Paul,' 'seven Catholic Epistles.' 
Both in the West and in the East the persecutor had 
wrought his work, and a New Testament rose complete 
from the fires which were kindled to consume it. That it 



1 Comm. in Ps. I. p. 247 : \tyec 
yovv 6 iepbs 'AiroaroXos' James v. i^. 
ib. p. 648 : rrjs ypoxprjs \eyovarjs' 
Prov. xx. 13 ; James iv. 11. Cf. ib. 
p. 446 ; c. Marc, de Eccl. Theol. II. 
26 ; James iii. 2. 

2 On the contrary cf . Theophania, 
v. 39 (P- 3 2 3, L ee). 

3 H. E. ni. 39. 



4 Cf. H.E. in. 18, 29. Eclog. Proph. 
IV. 30 : /caret rov 'Iw&vvqv Apoc. xiv. 
6. Cf. ib. iv. 8 ; Demonstr. Ev. 
VIII. 2 : /card rty 'AttokoXv^ip 'Ioj- 
&WQV Apoc. v. 5. No reference to 
it occurs however in his Commenta- 
ries on the Psalms and on Isaiah 
published by Montfaucon. 



in.] Eusebius. 377 

rested on no authoritative decision is simply a proof that ciiai\ i. 
none was needed ; and in the next chapter it will be seen 
that the Conciliar Canons introduced no innovations, but 
merely proposed to preserve the tradition which had been 
handed down. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE AGE OF COUNCILS. 

Non doctrina et sapientia, sed Domini auxllio pax Ecclesice reddita. 

JIlERUXYllUS. 



chap. ii. ATO sooner was Constantine's imagination moved by the 

/"VVT) ^//Tf ")? foil P v I ^» 

zeal for the -L * sign of the heavenly cross (if we may receive the 
tures. cnp ~ account of Eusebius), than he 'devoted himself to the 
' reading of the divine Scriptures/ seeking in them the in- 
terpretation of his vision 1 . And in after times he 'con- 
tinued, at least with outward zeal, the study which he had 
thus begun. If his predecessors ' had commanded the In- 
' spired Oracles to be consumed in the flames, he gave 
' orders that they should be multiplied, and embellished 
' magnificently at the expence of the royal treasury 2 .' One 
of his first cares after the foundation of Constantinople, 
when a 'great multitude of men devoted themselves to 
'the most holy Church,' was to charge Eusebius with 
. ' preparing fifty copies of the divine Scriptures, of which 
'he judged the preparation and the use to be most 
'necessary for the purpose of the Church, written on 
'prepared skins, by the help of skilful artists accurately 
' acquainted with their craft 3 .' ' For this object,' he adds, 

1 Euseb. V. C. I. 32. followed the conclusions as to the 

2 Euseb. V. C. in. 1. Canon of the N. T. to which he has 

3 Euseb. V. C. IV. 36. In doing given expression in his History (see 
this Eusebius must naturally have pp. 367 ff.), but no direct evidence on 



PART in.] Constantine. 379 

1 orders have been issued to the Governor of the Province chap. ii. 
1 to furnish everything required for the work ;' and autho- 
rity was given to Eusebius to employ ' two public carriages 
' for the speedy conveyal of the books when finished to 
1 the Emperor.' Everj^thing was designed to give import- 
ance to the commission. And as the Emperor himself set . 
an example to his subjects, ' studying the Bible in his 
'palace' and 'giving himself up to the contemplation of 
'the Inspired Oracles 1 ,' he- was better able to persuade 
' weak women and countless multitudes of men to receive 
' rational support for rational souls by divine readings, in 
1 exchange for the mere support of the body 2 .' 

The public and private zeal of the Emperor neces- ms influence. 
sarily exercised a powerful influence upon the Greek 
Church. The copies of the Greek Bible which he had 
caused to be prepared were for the use of the Churches of 
his new capital, and thus they formed a standard for eccle- 
siastical use. The effects of this were soon seen. The 
difference between the Controverted and Acknowledged 
Epistles was done away except as a matter of history. On 
the Apocalypse alone some doubts still remained. Some 
received and some rejected it. But on this a judgment 
clear and weighty was soon given by Athanasius 3 support- 
ed by the prescription of primitive tradition. In other 
respects the New Testament Canons of Eusebius and 
Athanasius coincide, and thenceforth the question was 
practically decided. 

During: the great controversies which agitated the The Scripture 

™ . , ii. • /-n . r « i i the rule °f 

Church throughout his reign Constantine — appointed by controversy. 

the point has been preserved. It is may have been added as an Appen- 

therefore uncertain whether the Apo- dix like the Alexandrine Apocrypha 

calypse was contained in Constan- of the Old Testament. 

tine's Bible or not. The later evi- * Euseb. V. C. iv. 17. 

dence from the Greek churches of 2 Euseb. De Laud. Const. XVII. 

the East points with fair distinctness a See p. 398, 

to its omission (see below), though it 



380 The Age of Councils. [part 

chap. ii. 'God as bishop in outward matters 1 ' — remained faithful 
to the same great principle of the paramount authority of 
Scripture. A historian of the Council of Nicsea represents 
him as closing his address to the fathers assembled there 
in memorable words. ' Let us cherish peace and forbear- 
' ance,' he says, f for it would be truly disastrous that we 
' should assail on'e another, particularly when we are dis- 
( cussing divine matters, and possess the teaching of the 
'most Holy Spirit committed to writing; for 'the books of 
' the Evangelists and Apostles and the utterances of the 
' ancient Prophets clearly instruct us what we ought to 
' think of the Divine Nature. Let us then banish strife 
' which genders contention, and take the solution of our 
'questions from the inspired words 2 .' Though we may 
admit that this speech is due to the pen of the historian 3 , 
it is thoroughly consistent with phrases in Constantine's 
letters which are of unquestioned authenticity. Thus he 
charges Arius with teaching 'things contrary to the in- 
' spired Scriptures and the holy faith,' which faith was ' in 
' truth the exact expression of the Divine Law 4 .' 

The criterion laid down by Constantine was also ac- 

Hoiy scrip- knowledged by the leaders of the conflicting parties in the 

tures appeal- ° ° . ° , x 

eci to as aw- Church. Alexander was bishop of Alexandria at the time 

thoritative by m x 

both sides when the opinions of Arius, ' a presbyter in the city en- 

during the L . 

Ariancontro- < trusted with the interpretation of the divine Scriptures 5 ,' 

versy, on other L L 7 

occasions, and fi rs t gained notoriety. He convened a Synod of many 
bishops of his province, by whom Arius was condemned 
from the ' testimony of the divine Scriptures ;' and among 

* 1 Euseb. V. C. IV. 24. Cf. Hein- 15, 88. Gelasius quotes 1 Tim. iii. 

ichen, Exc. in loc. 16 as 6 icpavepcbdyj, which is very re- 

2 Gelas. Hist. Cone. Nic. IL 7. raarkable in an Eastern writer (Hist. 
Theodor. H. E. 1. 7. II. 22). 

3 Gelasius states (Pref.) that his 4 Ep. Const, ap. Gelas. Hist. Cone. 
work was composed during the per- Nic. 11. 27. Socr. H. E. 1. 6. 
secutions of Basiliscus (475 A. p.). 5 Theodor. H. E. I. 2. 

Photius has criticised the book, cc. 



XXY11L 
19. 



ic ea. 
325 a ■»• 



in.] T/10 Council of Xiccca. 381 

other passages which Alexander quoted, there occur several chap. ii. 
from the Epistle to the Hebrews (as the work of the 
Apostle Paul) and one from the second Epistle' of the 
'blessed John 1 .' Arius on the other hand, when sending 
a copy of his Creed to the Emperor, adds : ' this is the 
'faith which we have received from the holy Gospels, ac- • 
' cording to the Lord's words, as the Catholic Church and Matt 
'the Scriptures teach, which we believe in all things: God 
'is our Judge both now and in the judgment to come 2 .' 
The followers of Arius repeated the assertion of . their 
master; and though some of them held the Epistle to the 
Hebrews to be uncanonical, that opinion was neither uni- 
versal among them, nor peculiar to their sect 3 . 

The discussions which took place at Nicrea were in ac- ? f the a f n ^ al 

-L Council of 

cordance with the principle thus laid down, if the history N 
of Gelasius be trustworthy 4 . Scripture was the source 
from which the champions and assailants of the orthodox 
faith derived their premises; and among other books, the 
Epistle to the Hebrews was quoted as written by St Paul, 
and the Catholic Epistles were recognized as a definite col- 

1 Ep. Alex. ap. Gelas. Hist. Cone. Senensis however says: omnes divi- 
Xic. ir. 3 (Socr. H. E. I. 3). Hebr. nas Scripturas in Gothicam linguam 
i. 3; xiii. 8; ii. 10. 1 John n. a se conversas tradidit et catholice 
So also Ep. Alex. ap. Theodor. H. E. explicavit (Massmann, p. 98). The 
I. 4 plansi, Concil. 11. p. 14) : cvjjl- version as it stands at present is 
(pava yovv tovtols /3oa Kal 6 jxeya\o- clear and accurate, and shows no 
(pcovoraros IlauXos (pao~Kuv irepl av- trace of Arianism (Massmann, a. a. 
rod' Hebr. i. 2. 0.). A great part of the Gospels 

2 Ep. Arii ad Const. Imp. (ap. and Pauline Epistles has been pub- 
Mansi, Concil. 11. p. 464. Ed. Par. lished : the former chiefly from the 
1671). Codex Argenteus at Upsal; the latter 

3 Theodor. Pref. Ep. ad Hebr. from Italian Manuscripts. At pre- 
Epiph. Hcer. lxix. 37. sent no traces of the Acts, the Catho- 

The famous Gothic Version of Ul- lie Epistles, or the Apocalypse, have 

philas, who is generally reputed to been discovered. A supposed refer- 

have been an Arian, contained 'all ence to the Epistle to the Hebrews 

'the Scriptures, except the books of is of doubtful cogency, 
'the Kings,' which were omitted 4 Hist. Cone. Nic. n. 13 — 23. 

because they contained a history of Mansi, Concil. II. 175 — 223. Phce- 

wars likely to inflame the spirit of badius (c. 359'A.D.) asserts the same 

the Goths (Philostorg. 11. 5). Sixtus fact. 



382 



The Age of Councils. 



[PAET 



CHAP. II. 



The Synods 
ichich imme- 
diately fol- 
lowed this 
Council disci- 
plinary and 
not doctrinal. 



i. The Synod 
of Laodicea. 



Its date. 



lection 1 . But neither in this nor in the following Councils 
were the Scriptures themselves ever the subjects of dis- 
cussion. They underlie all controversy, as a sure founda- 
tion, known and immoveable 2 . 

The Canons set forth by the Synods which followed 
the general Council at Nicsea, at Gangra in Paphlagonia, 
at Antioch in Syria, at Sardica in Thrace, and at Carthage, 
were chiefly directed to points of ritual and discipline, yet 
so that in the last Canon of the Synod at Gangra it is 
said: 'To speak briefly, we desire that what has been 
'handed down to us by the divine Scriptures and the 
'Apostolic traditions should be done in the Church 3 / 

The first Synod at which the books of the Bible were 
made the subject of a special ordinance was that of Lao- 
dicea in Phrygia Pacatiana; but the date at which the 
Synod was held, no less than the integrity of the Canon 
in question, has been warmly debated. In the collections 
of Canons the Council of Laodicea stands next to that of 
Antioch, and this order is probably correct. The argu- 
ments which have been urged to shew that it was prior to 
the Council of Nicaea are on the whole of little moment, 
and the mention of the Photinians in the seventh Canon, 
no less than the whole character of the questions discussed, 
is decisive for a later date 4 . A natural confusion of names 



1 Gelas. Hist. Cone. Nic. n. 19 : 
Kadws <p7]o~i /ecu 6 IlauXos to aKevos 
rrjs eKXoyijs rots 'E/Spcuots ypdcpw 
Hebr. iv. 12. ib.\ ev /ca#o\i/ccus 'Iw- 
dvvrjs 6 evayye\io~T7is /3oa' 1 John iii. 
6. Cf. 11. 22. For the Epistle to 
the Hebrews see also Sozom. H. E. 
I. 23. 

2 Jerome (Pref. in Judith, I. p. 
1 1 69) says: Quia mine librum syn- 
odus Nicsena in numero sanctarum 
scripturarum legitur computasse, ac- 
quievi postulationi tuae (to translate 
it). No reference to the book of 
Judith occurs in the records of the 



Council, as far as I am aware, and 
it can be only to some casual refer- 
ence that Jerome alludes. 

The holy Gospels were placed in 
the midst of the assembled fathers 
at Chalcedon, but though it is com- 
monly stated that it was so at Nicaea 
also, I know of no proof of the cir- 
cumstance. 

3 Cone. Gangr. Can. xxi. f. 

4 The name is omitted in the Latin 
Version of Isidore, but it is contain- 
ed in the Greek text and in the Ver- 
sion of Dionysius Exiguus. Phrygia 
was not divided into different pro- 



in.] The Synod of Laodicea. 383 

offers a ready excuse for the contrary opinion. Gratian 1 chap. ii. 
states that the Laodicene Canons were mainly drawn up 
by Theodosius; and Theodosius (Theodotus or Theodorus, 
for the name is variously written) was bishop of Laodicea 
in Syria at the time of the Council of Nicsea. But the 
statement of Gratian really points to a very different con- 
clusion; for Epiphanius mentions another Theodosius bishop 
of Philadelphia 2 , who is said to have convened a Synod in c 3 6 3 a.d. 
the time of Jovian for the purpose of condemning certain 
irregular ordinations 3 , and his position coincides admirably 
with that of the author of our Canons. Internal evidence 
also supports their identification; nor is it any objection 
that this Theodosius was an Arian, for the Canons are 
chiefly disciplinary, and such as cojild be ratified by ortho- 
dox councils; and at the same time that fact explains the 
omission of all reference to the Nicene Canons, which 
would otherwise be strange 4 . 

The date of the Synod of Laodicea (which was in fact The last Lao- 

, n dicene Canon 

only a small gathering of clergy from parts of Lydia and in the printed 
Phrygia' 5 ) being thus approximately affixed, the question 

vinces till after the Council of Sardis, and supposes that it was summoned 

hence the title — Phrygia Pacatiana inconsequence of letters from Valen- 

— points to a date later than 344 a.d. tinian, Valens, and Gratian (Theodor. 

Cf. Spittler, Werke, vin. 68 (ed. 1835). H.E. iv. 6), to the bishops 8lolkt)- 

1 Gr&i. JJecr. Dist. XVI. c. it : [Sy- aecos 'Ao-cavrjs, QpvyLas, Kapcxppvyias, 
nodus] sexta Laodicensis, in qua pa- HaKaTiavrjs, urging them to hold a 
tres xxxii. statuerunt Canones lxi. Synod on some who had been reviv- 
(sic ed. 1648; lxtii. ed. Antv. 1573) ing the Homoousian controversy, and 
quorum auctor maxime Theodosius also on the choice of men of approved 
cpiscopus exstitit. faith for the episcopate {Panel. Can. 

2 Epiph. Hcer. lxxiii. 26. 11. 3, p. 193). 

3 Philostorg. vin. 3, 4. 5 Gratian {I. c.) says it consisted 

4 Cf. Pagi, Crit. ad Baron. Ann. of i xxxii. fathers.' Harduin quotes 
314, xxv.; Baron. Opp. Tom. vi. a different version of Gratian's state- 
(ed. 1738). On the omission of the ment from a Parisian Manuscript of 
book of Judith from the Old Testa- Isidore: Laodicensis synodus, in qua 
ment Canon, said to have been re- Patres riginti quatuor statuerunt Ca- 
cognized by the Nicene Council, cf. nones Lix., quorum auctor maxime 
previous page, note 2. Theodosius episcopus exstitit, sub- 

Beveridge fixes the date of the scribentibus Xiceta, Macedonio, An- 
Synod about the same time (365 a.d.), at olio, et casteris. 



38-4 The Age of Councils. [part 

chap. ii. of the integrity of the last Canon, which contains the cata- 
logue of the books of Holy Scripture, remains to be con- 
sidered. In the printed editions of the Councils the Cata- 
logue stands as an undisputed part of the Greek text, and 
the whole Canon reads as follows : 

'Psalms composed by private men (ISceorc/covs:) must 
'not be read (\eyeo-0ai) in the Church, nor uncanonical 
1 (d/eavovMTTa) books, but only the Canonical [books] of the 
' New and Old Testaments. 

' How many books must be read {ava^ivwaiceaOai) ; 

' Of the Old Testament : I. The Genesis of the World. 
' 2. The Exodus from Egypt. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 
' 5. Deuteronomy. 6. Jesus the son of Nun. 7. Judges. 
'Ruth. 8. Esther. 9. Kings i. ii. 10. Kings iii. iv. 11. 
'Chronicles i. ii. 12. Esdras i. ii. 13. The Book of 
' Psalms cl. 14. The Proverbs of Solomon. 15. Eccle- 
'siastes. 16. The Song of Songs. 17. Job. 18. xii. Prophets. 
' 19. Esaias. 20. Jeremiah. Baruch. Lamentations, and 
'Letter. 21. Ezechiel. 22. Daniel. Together xxii. books. 

' Of the New Testament : Four Gospels, according to 
' Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The Acts of the Apostles. 
1 Seven Catholic Epistles thus : James i. Peter i. ii. 
' John i. ii. iii. Jude i. Fourteen Epistles of Paul thus : 
' to the Romans i. To the Corinthians i. ii. To the Gala- 
* tians i. To the Ephesians i. To the Philippians i. To 
' the Colossians i. To the Thessalonians i. ii. To the 
. 'Hebrews i. To Timothy i. ii. To Titus i. To Phi- 
' lemon i. 1 ' 

Of this Canon the first paragraph is recognized as 
genuine with unimportant variations by every authority; 
the second, the Catalogue of the Books itself, is omitted in 



1 Cf. App. T>. The Canons are both these paragraphs combine them 
variously numbered, but the oldest together as the Lixth Canon. Cf. 
and best authorities which contain Spittler, a. a. 0. 72. 



111.] 



The Synod of Laodicea. 



385 



various Manuscripts and versions; and in order to arrive chap. ir. 
at a fair estimate of its claims to authenticity, it will be How far its 

,. n , r(V n . i'ii claims to au- 

necessary to notice briefly the dinerent forms in which the thentidty are 
Canons of the ancient Church have been preserved 1 . 

The Greek Manuscripts of the Canons maybe divided r. Greek M*- 
into two classes, those which contain the simple text, and 
those which contain in addition the scholia of the great with Scholia, 
commentators. Manuscripts of the second class in no case 
date from an earlier period than the end of the twelfth 
century, the era of Balsamon and Zonaras, the most fa- 
mous Greek canonists. Yet it is on this class of Manu- 
scripts, which contain the Catalogue in question, that the 
printed editions are based. The earliest Manuscript of without Scho- 
the first class with which I am acquainted is of the eleventh 
century,, and one is as late as the fifteenth. The evidence 
on the disputed paragraph which these Manuscripts afford 
is extremely interesting. Tw t o omit the Catalogue entirely. 
In another it is inserted after a vacant space. A fourth 
contains it on a new page with red dots above and below. 
In a fifth it appears wholly written in red letters. Three 
others give it as a part of the last. Canon, though headed 
with a new rubric. In one it appears as a part of the 59th 
Canon without interruption or break ; and in two (of the 
latest date) numbered as a new Canon 2 . It is impossible 



lia. 



1 The authenticity of the Catalogue 
has been discussed at considerable 
length by SpitUer (Sanimtl. WerJce, 
viii. 66 ff. ed. 1835) whose essay 
was published in 1776, and again by 
Bickeli (Stud. u. Krit. 1830, pp. 
591 ff.). The essay of Spittler seems 
to me to be much superior to that of 
his successor in clearness and wide- 
ness of view. Spittler regards the Ca- 
talogue as entirely spurious ; Bickeli 
only allows that it was wanting in 
some very early copies of the Canons, 
and supposes that it may have been 
displaced by the general reception of 

C. 



the Apostolic Canons and Catalogue 
of Scripture. 

2 The Manuscripts with which I 
am acquainted are the following : 
(a) Cod.Barocc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 16 
(7), soec. xi. ineuntis. 
Cod. Misc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 1 70 
(12), saec. xiv. xv. 
These omit the Canon altogether. 
(/?) Cod. Barocc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 185 
(18), saec. xi. exeuntis. 
Gives the Canon after a 
vacant space. 
- Cod. Vindob. 56, srec. xi. On 
a new page with red dots 

CC 



386 



The Age of Councils. 



[part 



chap. II. 



2. The Ver- 
sions: 
Latin and 



not to feel that these several Manuscripts mark the steps 
by which the Catalogue gained its place in the present 
Greek text ; but it may still be questioned whether it may 
not have thus regained a place which it had lost before. 
And thus we are led to notice some versions of the Canons 
which date from a period anterior to the oldest Greek 
Manuscripts. 

The Latin version exists in a threefold form. The 
earliest (Versio Prised) is fragmentary, and does not con- 
tain the Laodicene Canons. But two other versions by 
Dionysius and Isidore are complete 1 . In the first of these, 
which dates from the middle of the sixth century, though 
it exists in two dictinct recensions, there is no trace of the 
Catalogue. In the second, on the contrary, with only two 
exceptions, as far as I am aware, the Catalogue constantly 
appears. And though the Isidorian version in its general 
form only dates from the ninth century, two Manuscripts 
remain which are probably as old as the ninth century, 
and both of these contain it 2 . So far then it appears that 
the evidence of the Latin versions for and against the 



above and below (Bickell, 

P. 595)- 

Cod. Seld. (Bibl. Bodl.) 48 

(10), ssec. xiii. ' All in red 

letters. 

(7) Cod. Barocc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 196 

(16), anno mxliii exaratus. 

Cod. Misc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 206, 

ssec. xi. exeuntis. 
Cod. Cant. (Bibl. Univ. Ee. 4. 
29. 22), ssec. xii. 
. These three give the Catalogue 
under a rubric baa — diadrjKns, but not 
as a new Canon. 

(5) Cod. Laud. (Bibl. Bodl.). 39 
(21), ssec. xi. ineuntis. As 
part of Canon 59. 
Cod. Barocc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 205 
(18), ssec. xiv. As a new 
Canon. 



Cod. Barocc. (Bibl. Bodl.) 

J 5^ ( 2 3)> saec - xv. As a 
new Canon. 
Cod. Arund. (Brit. Mus.) 533, 
ssec. xiv. As a new Canon, 
but all rubricated. 
Bandini {Bibl. Laur. I. pp. 72, 397, 
477) notices several other Manu- 
scripts which contain the Catalogue. 
The Manuscripts marked by italics 
are now I believe quoted on this 
question for the first time ; and for 
the account of all the Bodleian Ma- 
nuscripts I am indebted to the kind- 
ness of the Rev. H. 0. Coxe. 

1 In the account of the Latin ver- 
sions I have chiefly followed Spittler, 
a. a. 0. 98 ff. Cf. Bickell, 60 r ff. 

2 Spittler, p. 115. Cf. Bickell, 
p. 606. 



III.] 



The Synod of Laodlcea. 



387 



authenticity of the Catalogue is nearly balanced, the testi- chap, it 
mony of Italy confronting that of Spain. 

The Syriac Manuscripts of the British Museum are Syriac. 
however more than sufficient to turn the scale. Three 
Manuscripts of the Laodicene Canons are found in that 
collection, which are as old as the sixth or seventh century. • 
All of these contain the fifty-ninth Canon, but without 
any Catalogue. And this testimony is of twofold value 
from the fact that one of them gives a different translation 
from that of the other two 1 . 

Nor is this all : in addition to the direct versions of 3- Systematic 

arrangement 

the Canons, systematic collections and synopses of them °' ftJie Canons. 

were made at various times which have an important 

bearing upon the question. One of the earliest of these 

was drawn up by Martin bishop of Braga in Portugal ate. 5 soa.d. 

the middle of the sixth century. This collection contains 

the first paragraph of the Laodicene Canon, without any 

trace of the second; and the testimony which it offers is of 

more importance, because it was based on an examination 

of Greek authorities, and those of a very early date, since 

they did not notice the councils of Constantinople, Ephe- 

sus, and Chalcedon, which were included in the collections 

of the fifth century 2 . Johannes Scholasticus, a presbyter + 57S a.d. 

of Antioch, formed a digest of Canons under different 

heads about the same time, and this contains no reference 

to the Laodicene Catalogue, but on the contrary the list of 

Holy Scriptures is taken from the last of the Apostolic 



1 The Manuscripts are numbered 
14, 526; 14, 528; 14,529- All of 
them contain 59 Canons. For the 
examination of these Manuscripts 
I am indebted to the kindness of T. 
Ellis Esq. of the British Museum. 

The Arabic Manuscript in Eich's 
collection (7207) is only a fragment. 
Bickell consulted an Arabic transla- 



tion at Paris, which contained the 
Laodicene Canons twice, once with 
and once without the Catalogue (p. 

59 2 )- 

2 Mart. Brae. Pref. : Incipiunt 
Canones ex orientalibus antiqnorum 
patrum Synodis a venerabili Martino 
ipso vel ab omni Bracarensi Consilio 
excerpti vel emendati. 

CC 2 



388 



The Age of Councils. 



[part 



CHAP. II. 



The Cata- 
logue not an 
authentic 
part of the 
text of the 
Laodicene 
Canons, but 



an early ad- 
dition to it. 



The later Jiis- 
tory of the 
Laodicene 
Canons. 



692 A.D. 



Canons. The JSfomocanon is a later revision of the work 
of Johannes, and contains only the undisputed paragraph ; 
but in a third and later recension the Laodicene and Apo- 
stolic catalogues are both inserted. 

On the whole then it cannot be doubted that external 
evidence is decidedly against the authenticity of the Cata- 
logue as an integral part of the text of the Canons of 
Laodicea, nor can any internal evidence be brought forward 
sufficient to explain its omission in Syria, Italy, and Por- 
tugal, in the sixth century, if it had been so. Yet even 
thus it is necessary to account for its insertion in the 
version of Isidore. So much is evident at once, that the 
Catalogue is of Eastern and not of Western origin; and, 
except in details of order, it agrees exactly, with that given 
by Cyril of Jerusalem. Is it then an unreasonable sup- 
position that some early copyist endeavoured to supply, 
either from the writings of Cyril, or more probably from 
the usage of the Church which Cyril represented, the list 
of books which seemed to be required by the language of 
the last genuine Canon? In this way it is easy to under- 
stand how some Manuscripts should have incorporated the 
addition, while others preserved the original text; and the 
known tendency of copyists to make their works full 
rather than pure, will account for its general reception 
at last. 

The later history of the Laodicene Canons does not 
throw any considerable light on the question of the 
authenticity of the Catalogue 1 . Though they were origi- 
nally drawn up by a provincial (and perhaps unorthodox) 
Synod, they were afterwards ratified by the Eastern 



1 It is commonly supposed that 
the Laodicene Canons were ratified 
at the Council of Chalcedon (45 1 A.D.) : 
Cone. Chalc. Can. 1. But the word- 
ing of the Canon is very vague. 



Justinian by a special ordinance ra- 
tified not only the Canons of the four 
general Councils, of which that of 
Chalcedon was the last, but also 
those which they confirmed. 



in.] The Synod of Laodicea. 389 

Church at the Quinisextine Council of Constantinople, chap ii 
But nothing can be concluded from this as to the absence 
of the list of the Holy Scriptures from the copy of the 
Canons which was then confirmed. The Canons of the 
Apostles were sanctioned at the same Council; and though 
a special reservation was made in approving them, to the 
effect that the Clementine Constitutions, which they 
recognized as authoritative, were no longer to be received 
as Canonical, on account of. the interpolations of heretics, 
no notice was taken of the two Clementine epistles which 
were also pronounced Canonical at the same time 1 . It is 
then impossible to press the variations between the Apo- 
stolic and Laodicene Catalogues as a conclusive proof that 
they could not have been admitted simultaneously 2 . The 
decision of the Council contained a general sanction rather 
than a detailed judgment. And this is further evident 
from the differences between the Apostolic and Carthagi- 
nian Catalogues which were certainly ratified together 3 . 

1 Concil. Quinisext. Can. XXI. The 'of the beloved.' There is no Cata- 
Catalogue of the books of Scripture logue of the books of Scripture in 
in the last Apostolic Canon is cu- the Orthodox Confession, but the 
rious; but as a piece of evidence it Apocalypse is quoted in it (Qucest.14), 
is of no value. It was drawn, I be- and as ' Holy Scripture ' (Qucest. 73). 
lieve, from Syrian sources, and pro- At the Synod of Jerusalem (a. d. 1672) 
bably dates from the sixth century. Cyril was condemned for ' rejecting 
Cf. App. D. 'some of the books which the holy 

2 Though the Catalogues differed ' and oecumenical Synods had re- 
in other respects, they coincided in 'ceived as Canonical,' but no charge 
omitting the Apocalypse. Cf.App.D. is brought against him for adding to 

3 The later history of the Canon them, so that in this case the Car- 
in the Greek Church, which accepts thaginian and not the Laodicene Ca- 
the decrees of the Quinisextine Coun- talogue was the standard of reference 
cil, shews that the ratification of for the New Testament (Act. Synod. 
these earlier Councils was not sup- Hieros. xvm. p. 417, Kimmel). In 
posed to fix definitely (which indeed the confession ofDositheus the Greek 
it could not do) the contents of Holy Church is said to receive ' all the 
Scripture. Cyril Lucar {Confess. 3.) ' books which Cyril borrowed from 
proposed to admit 'such books as ' the Laodicene Council, with the ad- 
'were recognized by the Synod at 'dition of those which he called... 
'Laodicea, and by the Catholic and 'Apocryphal' (Kimmel, p. 467. Cf. 
1 orthodox Church,' but he adds to Proleg. § 1 1 on the Latin influence 
the New Testament * the Apocalypse supposed to have been exercised on 



390 



The Age of Councils. 



[part 



CHAP. II. 



ji. The third 
Council of 
Carthage. 



The Canon of 
Scripture 
which was 
received there. 



So again at a later time the Laodicene Catalogue was 
confirmed by a Synod at Aix-la-Chapelle in the time of 
Charlemagne, and gained a wide currency in the Isidorian 
version of the Canons. But there is no evidence to shew 
that there was on this account any doubt in the Western 
Churches as to the authority or public use of the Apoca- 
lypse. But though no argument can be drawn against 
the authenticity of the Catalogue from the ratification of 
the Laodicene Canons at Constantinople, that fact leaves 
the preponderance of evidence against it wholly unaffected. 
The Catalogue may have been a contemporary appendix 
to the Canons, but it was not I believe an integral part of 
the original conciliar text. 

It is then necessary to look to the West for the first 
synodical decision on the Canon of Scripture. Between 
the years 390 and 419 A.D. no less than six councils were 
held in Africa, and four of these at Carthage. For a time, 
under the inspiration of Aurelius and Augustine, the 
Church of Tertullian and Cyprian was filled with a new 
life before its fatal desolation. Among the Canons of the 
third Council of Carthage, at which Augustine was pre- 
sent, is one which contains a list of the books of Holy 
Scripture. 'It was also determined/ the Canon reads, 
' that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in 



these documents). In the Confes- 
sion of Metrophanes Critopulus the 
Canon of the Old Testament is iden- 
tical with the Hebrew, that of the 
New Testament with our own, so 
that there are 'thirty -three books in 
i all, equal in number to the years of 
'the Saviour's life.' The Apocrypha 
is there regarded as useful for its 
moral precepts, but its Canonicity is 
denied on the authority of Gregory 
of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, and 
Johannes Damascenus, but no refer- 
ence is made to the Laodicene Canon 



(Kimmel, II. 105 f.). At the Synod 
of Constantinople a general refer- 
ence is made to the different cata- 
logues in the Apostolic Canons and 
in the Synods of Laodicea and Car- 
thage (Kimmel, II. 225). In the 
Catechism of Plato and in the autho- 
rized Russian Catechism the Old 
Testament is given according to the 
Hebrew Canon. On the other hand, 
the authorized Moskow edition of 
the Bible contains the Old Testament 
Apocrypha arranged with the other 
books (Reuss, § 338). 



ill.] The Third Council of Carthage. 391 

'the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The chap. ii. 
' Canonical Scriptures are these : Genesis, Exodus, Levi- 
' ticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, 
'Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Para- 
' leipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the 
1 books of the twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, 
' Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two ' 
'books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four 
1 books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apo- 
' sties, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one Epistle 
1 of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the 
c Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, 
' one book of the Apocalypse of John.' Then follows this 
remarkable clause : 'Let this be made known also to our 
'brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of 
'those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon, 
'because we have received from our fathers that those 
' books must be read in the Church/ And afterwards the 
Canon is thus continued : ' Let it also be allowed that the 
'Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are 
'kept 1 .' 

Even this Canon therefore is not altogether free from Ancxpiana- 

ti on of the 

difficulties. The third Council of Carthage was held ^m™ of this 
the year 397 A.D. in the pontificate of Siricius ; and Boni- 
face did not succeed to the Roman chair till the year 418 
A.D.; so that the allusion to him is at first sight perplex- 
ing. Yet this anachronism admits of a reasonable solu- 
tion. In the year 419 A.D., after the confirmation of Bo- 
niface in the Roman episcopate, the Canons of the Afri- 
can Church were collected and formed into one code. In 
the process of such a revision it was perfectly natural that 
some reference should be made to foreign churches on 
such a subject as the contents of Scripture, which were 

» Cf. App. D. 



392 



The Age of Councils. 



[paet 



CHAP. II. 



The evidence 
of Fathers 
on the Canon 
from the 
fourth cen- 
tury in 



i. The 
Churches of 
Syria. 



i. Antiocl). 

C'HRYteOSlOM. 
t407 A.D. 



fixed by usage rather than by law. The marginal note 
which directed the inquiry was suffered to remain, proba- 
bly because the plan was never carried out ; and that 
which stood in the text of the general code was afterwards 
transferred to the text of the original Synod 1 . 

At this point then the voice of a whole province 
pronounces a judgment on the contents of the Bible; 
and the books of the New Testament are exactly those 
which are generally received at present. But in making 
this decision the African bishops put aside all notions of 
novelty. Their decision had been handed down to them 
by their fathers ; and to revert once again from Churches 
to men, our work would be unfinished without a general 
review of the principal evidence on the Canon furnished 
by individual writers from the beginning of the fourth 
century. Nothing indeed is gained by this for a critical 
investigation of the subject ; for the original materials 
have been all gathered already. But it is not therefore 
the less interesting to trace the local prevalence of ancient 
doubts, and the gradual extension of the "Western Canon 
throughout Christendom. 

Turning towards the Eastern limit of Christian litera- 
ture we find the ancient Canon of the Peshito still domi- 
nant at Antioch, at Nisibis, and probably at Edessa 2 . 

The voluminous writings of Chrysostom, who was at 
first a presbyter of Antioch and afterwards patriarch of 
Constantinople, abound in references to Holy Scripture; 
he is indeed said to have been the first writer who gave 
the Bible its present name ra fttftXta, The Books*; but 
with the exception of one very doubtful quotation from 



1 The Carthaginian Catalogue of 
the Books of Scripture is found in 
the Canons of the Council of Hippo 
(419 A.D.). But mention is made in 
that of 'fourteen Epistles of Paul' 



instead of the strange circumlocution 
given above (Cone. Hipp. 36). 

2 Cf. supr. p. 212. 

3 Suicer, ThesauritSj s. v. 



of 



in.] Chrysostom. 393 

the second Epistle of St Peter 1 , I believe that he has chap, ir 
nowhere noticed the four Catholic Epistles which are not 
contained in the Peshito, nor the Apocalypse 2 . It is also 
in accordance with the same Version that he attributed 
fourteen Epistles to St Paul, and received the Epistle of 
St James 'the Lord's brother' with the first Epistles of St 
Peter and St John 3 . A Synopsis of Scripture which was gggpsisfc 
published by Montfaucon under the name of Chrysostom 
exactly agrees with this Canon, enumerating ' as the books 
' of the New Testament, fourteen Epistles of St Paul, four 
'Gospels, the book of the Acts, and three of the Catholic 
'Epistles 4 .' Theodore, a friend of Chrysostom and bishop t^eodoreo. 
of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, wrote commentaries on fourteen 1429 a.j>. 
Epistles of St Paul ; and his remaining fragments contain 
several quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews as St 
Paul's 5 . But Leontius of Byzantium writing at the close 
of the sixth century states that he rejected 'the Epistle of 
'James and other of the Catholic Epistles,' by which we 
must probably understand that he received only the ac- 
knowledged first Epistles of St Peter and St John 6 . And 

1 Horn, in Joan. 34 (al. 33) vm. to the second Epistle of St Peter. 
p. 230, ed. Par. nova; 2 Pet. ii. 22 Dial. cc. 18, 20 (ap. Chrysost. Opp. 
(Prov. xxvi. 11). T. xin. pp. 68 c; 79 D ; 68 C). 

2 Though Chrysostom nowhere 4 Cf. App. D. 
quotes the Apocalypse as Scripture, 5 Comm. in Zachar. p. 542 (ed. 
he appears to have been acquainted Wegnern, Berl. J 834), ovs expw o.l- 
with it; and indeed it is difficult to crx vv ^V vaL 7°^ u T °v P-aKapiov IlavXov 
suppose the contrary. Suidas (s. v. rr\v (j>Lowf]v...~H.ehY. i. 7, 8. Cf. Ebed 
'ludvpTjs) says: 5ex erat ^ Xpvcro- Jesu, ap. Assem. Bibl. Or. ill. 32. 3. 
arofjios kclI ras iiriaToXas avrov ras 6 See also what Cosmas Indico- 
rpeh Kal tt)v ' kiroKa\v\pLv. If this pleustes says of Severian of Gabala 
be true, it is a singular proof of the (Montf. Anal. Pp. p. 135, Venet. 
ioconclusiveness of the casual evi- 1781). The words of Leontius are: Ob 
dence of quotations. quani causam (because he rejected the 

3 It is however very well worth book of Job) ut arbitror ipsam Jacobi 
notice that Palladius, a friend of epistolam et alias deinceps aliorum 
Chrysostom, in a dialogue which he Catholicas abrogat et antiquat. Non 
composed at Pome on his life, has enim satis fuit illi bellum contra \ 
expressly quoted the Epistle of St terem Scripturam suscipere ad imi- 
Jude and the third Epistle of St tationem impietatis Marcionis, sud 
John, and makes an evident allusion oportuit etiam contra scripturam no- 



394 



The Age of Councils. 



[part 



CHAP. II. 



Theodoret. 



2. Nisibis. 
J ramus. 



Ebed Jesu. 



though nothing is directly known of his judgment on the 
Apocalypse, it is at least probable that in respect to this 
he followed the common opinion of the school to which he 
belonged. Once again : Theodoret, a native of Antioch 
and bishop of Cyrus in Syria, used the same books as 
Chrysostom, and has nowhere quoted the four disputed 
Epistles or the Apocalypse 1 . 

Junilius, an African bishop of the sixth century, has 
given a very full and accurate account of the doctrine on 
Holy Scripture taught in the schools of Nisibis in Syria, 
where ' the Divine Law was regularly explained by public 
'masters, like Grammar and Rhetoric. 5 He enumerates 
all the acknowledged books of the New Testament as of 
' perfect authority ;' and adds to these the Epistle to the 
Hebrews as St Paul's^ though he places it after the Pasto- 
ral Epistles. 'Very many (quamplurimi) ,' he says, 'add 
1 to the first Epistles of St Peter and St John five others, 
'which are called the Canonical letters of the Apostles, 
'that is: James, 2 Peter, Jude, % and 3 John...' 'As to 
'the Apocalypse of John, there is considerable doubt 
'among Eastern Christians 2 ../ At a very much later 
period Ebed Jesu, a Nestorian bishop of Nisibis in the 
thirteenth century, has left a catalogue of the writings of 
the New Testament at the commencement of his summary 
of ecclesiastical literature. This catalogue exactly agrees 
with that of the Peshito, including fourteen Epistles of St 
Paul, and ' three Catholic Epistles ascribed to the Apostles 
'in every Manuscript and language;' and it contains do 
allusion to the other disputed books 3 . 



vam pugnare, ut pugna ejus contra 
Spiritum Sanctum clarior et illus- 
trior esset (c. Nest, et Eutych. in. ap. 
Canis. Varr. Lect. iv. 73. Ed. 1603). 
1 Cf. Liicke, Coram, ub. Joh. I. 348. 
A Commentary on the Gospels attri- 
buted to Yictor of Antioch contains 



references to the Epistle to the He- 
brews, and to the Epistles of St 
James and the first of St Peter. Cf. 
Lardner, II. c. 122. 

2 The passages are given at length 
in App. D. 

3 Cf. App. D. It is very remark- 



III.] Johannes Damascenus. 3.05 

The testimony of Ephrem Syrus is unfortunately un- chap. ii. 
certain. For while he appears to use all the books of our | FHB1B 
New Testament in his works, which are preserved only in SrRUS - 

. . . . t 378 A.D. 

Greek, I am not aware that there is in the original Syriac 
text more than one quotation of the Apocalypse, and 
perhaps an anonymous reference to the second Epistle of 
St Peter 1 . 

Johannes Damascenus, the last writer of the Syrian Johannes 

Damascenus. 

Church whom I shall notice, lived at a time when the 
Greek element had gained a preponderating influence in \e. 73 oAJx 
the East, and his writings in turn are commonly accepted 
as an authoritative exposition of the Greek faith. The 
Canon of the New Testament which he gives 2 contains all 
the books which we receive now, with the addition of the 
Canons of the Apostles. This singular insertion admits 
of a satisfactory explanation from the fact that the Apo- 
stolic Canons were sanctioned by the Quinisextine Coun- 
cil, and their Canonicity might well seem a true corollary 
from the acknowledgment of their ecclesiastical autho- 
rity 3 . 

The Churches of Asia Minor, w T hich are now even ii. The 

Churches of 

more desolate than the Churches of S) r ria, had lost little Asia Minor, 
of their former lustre in the fourth and fifth centuries. 
In doctrinal tendency they still mediated between the 
East and the West. And this characteristic appears in 

able that Ebed Jesu takes no notice c. 102. 

of the Apocalypse, since he mentions a Cf. App. D. 

after a short interval among the 3 The Canons of Carthage were 

works of Hippolytus l an Apology ratified by the Quinisextine Council 

'for the Gospel and Apocalypse of as well as those of the Apostles and 

'John, Apostle and Evangelist' of Laodicea. But the reservation in 

(Assem. Bibl. Orient, m. 15). the Carthaginian decree on the Ca- 

1 Ephr. Syr. Opp. Syrr. 11. p. nonical Books makes the discrepancy 

332 c: Vidit in Apocalypsi sua Jo- between that and the Apostolic Cata- 

hannes librum magnum et admirabi- logue less remarkable than that be- 

lem et septem sigillis munitum...2&. tween the Laodicene and Apostolic 

ir. p. 342 : Dies Domini fur est (cf. Catalogues. Cf. p. 389. 
2 Pet. iii. 10). Cf. Lardner, Ft. n. 



396 The Age of Councils. [part 

chap. ii. one of two catalogues of the books of the New Testament 
gfoef?by° gue8 which have been preserved among the works of Gregory 
ifSmzus y of Nazianzus 1 . After enumerating the four Gospels, the 
f n n y Acts, fourteen Epistles of St Paul, and seven Catholic 

f C. 389 A.D. . 

Epistles, Gregory adds : ' In these you have all the in- 
' spired books ; if there be any book besides these, it is 
1 not among the genuine [Scriptures] ;' and thus he ex- 
cludes the Apocalypse with the Eastern Church, and ad- 
mits all the Catholic Epistles with the Western 2 . The 
second Catalogue which bears the name of Gregory is 
commonly (and I believe rightly) attributed to his con- 
amphilochius. temporary Amphilochius bishop of Iconium. This ex- 
tends to a greater length than the former. Beginning 
with the mention of the four Gospels, of the Acts of the 
Apostles, and of fourteen Epistles of St Paul, it then con- 
tinues : l but some maintain that the Epistle to the He- 
( brews is spurious, not speaking well; for the grace [it 
'shews] is genuine. To proceed: what remains? Of the 
' Catholic Epistles some maintain that we ought to receive 
' seven, and others three only, one of James, and one of 
'Peter, and one of John.... The Apocalypse of John again 
'some reckon among [the Scriptures]; but still the majo- 
' rity say that it is spurious. This will be the most truth- 
' ful Canon of the inspired Scriptures/ 
incidental The extant writings of Gregory do not throw much 

gbegokt of U additional light on his views of the Canon. Though he 
us> admitted the Canonicity of the seven Catholic Epistles, 
he does not appear to have ever quoted them by name, 
and I have only found one or two anonymous references 
to the Epistle of St James 3 . But on the contrary he 
once makes an obvious allusion to the Apocalypse, and in 

1 Both these Catalogues are given same Catalogue (Credner, Geschichte 
in App. D. d. N. T. Kanon, p. 227). 

2 Cosmas of Jerusalem, a friend 3 Greg. Naz. Or. xxvi. 5 (p.475); 
of Johannes Damascenus, gives the James ii. 20. Cf. Or. XL. 45. 



in.] Gregory of Xazianzus. 397 

another place refers to it expressly with marked respect 1 , chap.ii. 
This silence of Gregory with regard to the disputed hooks, 
though he held them all to be Canonical, at least with 
the exception of the Apocalypse which he does quote, 
explains the like silence of Gregory of Nyssa, and of his Gregory of 
brother Basil of Csesarea. Basil refers only once to the basil.' 
Epistle of St James, and once to the Apocalypse as the 
work of the Evangelist St John 2 . And Gregory twice 
refers to the Apocalypse as- a writing of St John, and a 
part of Scripture ; but makes no allusion to the disputed 
Catholic Epistles 3 . All these fathers however agree in 
using the Epistle to the Hebrews as an authoritative 
writing of St Paul 4 . 

But whatever may have been the doubts as to the r/^Apoca- 
Canonicity of the Apocalypse which were felt in Asia by 
Minor at the close of the fourth century, they wholly dis- 
appeared afterwards. Andrew bishop of Csesarea at the Andrew f 
close of the fifth century wrote a Commentary on it, pre- by 
facing his work w T ith the statement that he need not 
attempt to prove the Inspiration of the book, which was 
attested by the authority of Papias, Irenseus, Methodius, 
Hippolytus, and Gregory the Divine (of Nazianzus 5 ). 
Arethas, who is supposed to have been a successor of Aretha?. 
Andrew in the see of Csesarea, composed another com- 



1 Greg. Naz. Or. XXIX. p. 536; ovrovs dC ali>LyfjLaTos\eyoi>Tos...Aipoc. 
Apoc. i. 8. Cf. Or. XL. 45; Apoc. iii. 15. adv. Apoll. 37 (Gallandi, vi. 
i. 7. lb. Tom. I. p. 516 C (ed. Par. 570 d) : rrjs ypacp-qs 6 \6yos (Apoc). 
1609) : wpbs de rovs eQecrruras dyye- 4 The works attributed to Caesa- 
Xous, Treido/jLOLi yap aWovs olWtjs irpc- rius (Gallandi, VI.) are not the works 
GTCLTelv eKKXrjalas, (hs 'lajdwrjs dead- of the brother of Basil, but evidently 
<TK€i pL€ did ttjs diroKaXv^ecos... belong to a later age. They contain 

2 Basil. Const. Monast. 26 (Ep. St references to St Janies(p. 5D;p. iooe), 
James); adv. Eunom. II. 14 (Apoca- to 1 Peter (Uerpos 6 KXeidovxos tt}s 
lypse). pacriXdas rQu ovpavQv, p. 36 a), and 

3 Greg. Nyss. Or. in Ordin. suam, to the Apocalypse (p. 19 e). 

T. p. 876 (ed. Par. 1615): rJKovaa rod 5 Proleg. ad Coram. in Apoc. Eouth, 

evayy€\L(TTov 'Iwdvvov ev diroKpixpois Bell. Sacr. I. p. 15. 
(in mysterious words) irpbs robs rot- 



398 



The Age of Councils. 



[paet 



CHAP. II. 



iii. The 
Church of 
Jerusalem. 

Cyril. 

315—386 AD. 



Epiphanius. 

t 403 A.D. 



iv. The 

Church of 
Alexandria. 

Athanasius, 

t 373 a.d. 



mentary on the Apocalypse, and adds the name of Basil 
to the list of the witnesses to its Canonicity given by 
Andrew 1 . 

In speaking of the Churches of Syria I omitted to 
notice that of Jerusalem because it was essentially Greek. 
Cyril, who presided over it during the middle of the 
fourth century, has left a catalogue of the books of the 
New Testament in his Catechetical Lectures which- he 
composed at an early age 2 . In this he includes all the 
books which we receive, with the exception of the Apoca- 
lypse ; and at the close of his list he says : ' But let all 
' the rest be excluded [from the Canon, and be accounted] 
'in the second rank. And all the books which are not 
' read in the Churches, neither do thou [my scholar] read 
f by thyself, as thou hast heard.' Epiphanius bishop of 
Constantia (Salamis) in Cyprus was a contemporary and 
countryman of Cyril. In his larger work against heresies 
he has given casually a Canon of the New Testament, 
exactly coinciding with our own 3 ; and though he else- 
where mentions the doubts entertained about the Apoca- 
lypse, he uses it himself without hesitation as part of 
'the spiritual gift of the holy Apostle 4 .' 

The Church of Alexandria remained true to the judg- 
ment of its greatest teacher. Athanasius in one of his 
Festal Epistles has given a list of the books of the New 
Testament, — 'the fountains of salvation,' — exactly agree- 
ing with our own Canon. In addition to these he notices 
other books, and among them the Teaching of the Apostles 
.and the Shepherd, as useful for young converts, though 



1 Cramer, CEcum. et Arethce Comm. 
in Apoc. p. 1 74, ap. Routh, I. c. p. 41. 
Yet the words 6 ev ay Lots Bao-LXeios 
are wanting in one Manuscript. 

2 Cyr. Catech. iv. 33 (al. 22); cf. 
App. D. 



3 Epiph. Hcer. lxxvi. 5. App. D. 

4 Epiph. Hcer. LT. 35 : 6 aytos 'Ia>- 
dvvrjs 5ia rod evayyeXiov real r&v eVi- 

(TTOX&V Kal T7JS ' A7TOKCl\lJ\p€US €K TOV 

avrou x a pl°~l JLaT0 $ T °v aytov /j,€T.a54~ 
5w/ce. Cf. ib. 3. 



III.] 



Euthalius. 



399 



they were not included in the Canon. The Apocryphal 
books — the forgeries of heretics — form a third class. But 
Athanasius takes no notice of any difference of opinion 
as to the acknowledged and disputed books : in his judg- 
ment both alike were Canonical 1 . Cyril of Alexandria 
and Isidore of Pelusium at the beginning of the fifth cen- 
tury made use of the same books without any addition or 
reserve. Somewhat earlier Didymus published a com- 
mentary on the seven Catholic Epistles, though he states 
that the second Epistle of St Peter ' was accounted spuri- 
'ous, and not in the Canon, though it was publicly read 2 / 
And in the middle of the fifth century, as has been already 
seen 3 , Euthalius published an edition of the fourteen 
Epistles of St Paul and of the seven Catholic Epistles, 
with the help of the Manuscripts which he found in the 
library of Pamphilus at Csesarea 4 . 



cttap. ir. 



Ctbil. 

f444 A.D. 

Isidore. 
t c. -440 A. P. 



DlDYMU*. 

tc 395 a.d. 



Euthalius. 



1 Athanas. Ep. Fest. Tom. I. 767, 
ed.Bened. 1777. Cf.App.D. There 
is not the least reason to believe that 
this Canon was designed as a protest 
against the Canon of Eusebius. It 
was indeed nothing more than the 
old Alexandrine Canon. The Cata- 
logue of the Books of Scripture con- 
tained in the Synopsis Sacrce Scrip- 
turce appended to the works of Atha- 
nasius is probably of much later date. 
It contains all the books in our New 
Testament. Credner (Zur Gcschichte 
d.K. 129 ff.) supposes that it was writ- 
ten not earlier than the tenth cen- 
tury, and based upon tbeStichoinetry 
of Xicephorus. Cf. next page, n. 2. 

2 Did. Alex. p. 1774 ed. Migne 
(cf. Llicke ad loc.) : Non est igitur 
ignorandum praesentem epistolam 
esse falsatam (u>> vodeverai, Euseb. 
H. E. 11. 23, of the Epistle of St 
James), quae licet publicetur (h-n/JLo- 
<rt.eveTai, Euseb. I. c.) non tamen in 
Canone est (ovk ipdiddTjKos earc, 
Euseb. H. E. in. 3). 

3 Cf. pp. 345 sqq. There is no evi- 
dence to shew what the judgment of 



Euthalius was on the Apocalypse. 

4 Cosmas Indicopleustes, an 
Alexandrian of the sixth century, 
first a merchant and afterwards a 
monk, has left a curious work On 
the World, in which among other 
digressions he gives some account of 
the Holy Scriptures (See App. D). 
He enumerates the four Gospels, the 
Acts, fourteen Epistles of St Paul, 
affirming that the Epistle to the He- 
brews was originally written in He- 
brew and translated into Greek by 
St Luke or Clement. His account 
of the Catholic Epistles is obscure 
and inaccurate. After answering 
an objection to one of his theories 
which might be drawn from 2 Peter 
iii. 12, he proceeds to say that the 
Church has looked upon them as of 
doubtful authority, that the Syrians 
only received three, that no commen- 
tator had written upon them. He 
says particularly that Irenaeus only 
mentioned two, evidently mistaking 
Euseb. H. E. v. 8. Cosm. Indie! 
de Mirndo, vn. p. 135, ap. Anal. Pp. 
Venet. 17S1. In the works of 



400 



The Age of Councils. 



[part 



CHAP. II. 

v. The 
Church of 
Constanti- 
nople. 



Cassian. 
t c 450 A.D. 



Ltwttus. 

f C. 620 A.D. 



NiCEpnoTtus. 

t S28 A.D. 



After the foundation of Constantinople the new capital 
assumed in some degree the central position of ' old ' 
Rome ; and Rome became more clearly and decidedly the 
representative of the Western Churches. The Church of 
Constantinople, like that of Rome in early times, was not 
fertile in great men. Strangers were attracted to the 
imperial court, but I do not remember any ecclesiastical 
writer of Constantinople earlier than Nicephorus and 
Photius in the ninth century. Chrysostom was trained at 
Antioch. Cassian had lived in Palestine, Egypt, and 
Gaul, as well as at Constantinople. Leontius, even if he 
were a Byzantine by birth, was trained in Palestine, and 
probably was a bishop of Cyprus. Cassian s works contain 
quotations from all the Canonical books of the New 
Testament, except the two shorter Epistles of St John; 
and there is no reason to suppose that he rejected these. 
Leontius has left a catalogue of the Apostolic writings, 
' received in the Church as Canonical,' identical with our 
A catalogue of the books of Scripture, with the 



own 



addition of the number of verses in each book (Sticho- 
metria), is appended to the Chronographia of Nicephorus 2 . 
This contains all the books of the New Testament, with 
the exception of the Apocalypse, as 'received by the 
' Church and accounted Canonical ;' but the Apocalypse is 
placed among the disputed writings, together with the 
Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews 3 . So far then the 
Canon of Nicephorus coincides with that of Gregory, of 
Cyril, and of Laodicea, and it is probable that he borrowed 



Diontsius, falsely called the Areopa- 
gite, which probably belong to the 
beginning of the sixth century, there 
is a mystical enumeration of the 
books of Holy Scripture which in- 
cludes the Apocalypse. 
1 Cf. App. D. 



2 Credner has examined the Sti- 
chometry of Nicephorus (cf App. D) 
in connexion with the Festal Letter 
of Athanasius and the Synopsis Sacrcs 
Scripturce (Zur Gesch. d. R. § 3). 

3 I have followed the text of 
Credner, a. a. 0. p. 121. 



in.] Photius. 401 

it as it stands from some earlier writer. Photius again, chap. ir. 
who lived a little later than Nicephorus, takes no notice tsJTlS 
of the Apocalypse, though he certainly received all the 
other writings of the New Testament. And at a still 
later time it cannot be shewn that either QEcumenius in (Ecmmnua. 

C. 950 A. D. 

Thessaly or Theophylact in Bulgaria looked upon the treo^ut. 
Apocalypse as Apostolic ; but with this partial exception 
the Canon of Constantinople was complete and pure 1 . 

In the Western Churches the doubts as to the Epistle yi. The 

± , Churche* of 

to the Hebrews continued to reappear for some time, the west. 

Isidore of Seville in reviewing the books of the Xew faEpUtiet* 

Testament says that the authorship of the Epistle was 1 636 Id. 

considered 'doubtful by very many (plerisque) Latin 

1 Christians on account of the difference of style 2 .' But 

this doubt was rather felt than declared ; and its existence 

is shewn by the absence of quotations from the Epistle, 

rather than by any open attacks upon its authority. It is 

not quoted I believe by Optatus of Milevis Qlileum) in c.370 a. p. 

Africa, by Phoebadius or Vincent of Lerins in Gaul, nor by 

Zeno of Verona 3 . Hilary of Kome and Pelagius wrote *%f^ tt 

Commentaries on thirteen Epistles of St Paul ; but though 

they did not comment on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 

both speak of it as a work of the Apostle 4 . But the 

1 Two later writers of the Greek (H. E. IL 45). LEO AiLATIUB 

Church deserve mention as witness- {fi66g), keeper of the Vatican^ Li- 

ing to the current belief of their brary in the time of Alexander VII., 

times. Nicephorus Callisti a says that 'in his time the Catholic 

monk of Constantinople, who wrote ' Epistles and Apocalypse were re- 

an Ecclesiastical History about 1325 'ceived as true and genuine Scrip- 

A.D., enumerates all the books of ' ture, and publicly read throughout 

the Xew Testament as we receive ' all Greece like the other Scriptures.' 

them. 'Seven Catholic Epistles,' Fabr. BibL Or. v. App. p. 38. 

he says, 'the Church has received 2 Isid. Proem. §§ 85 — 109 (v. 155 

'of old time (avcodev), and reckons sqq. ed. Migne). Cf. App. D. 

'them most certainly (fin fxaXurTa) 3 Pacian has been quoted as 

\ among the books of the New Testa- omitting all mention of the Epistle, 

ment...The Apocalypse we know but in fact he quotes it as St Paul's, 

'to have been handed down to the Pac. Ep. in. 13 : Apostolus dicit... 

€ Church. The books besides these et'iterum...Hebr. x. 1. 

'are spurious and falsely named' 4 Pelag. Comm. in Rom. i. 17 

c PD 



402 



The Age of Councils. 



[part 



CHAP. II. 



The testimony 
of Jerome, 



doubt as to the Epistle to the Hebrews was the only one 
which remained 1 , and the influence of Jerome and Augus- 
tine did much to remove it. 

It was indeed impossible that the revised Latin Ver- 
sion of Jerome should fail to mould insensibly the judg- 
ment of the Western Churches. Jerome, who was well 
read in earlier fathers, was familiar with the doubts which 
had been raised as to some of the books of the New Testa- 
ment, but in his letter to Paulinus, as well as in many 
other places, he clearly expresses his own conviction of the 
Canonicity of them all 2 . With regard to the Epistle to 
the Hebrews and the Apocalypse, he professed ' to be in- 
( fluenced not so much by the custom of his own time, as 
' by the authority of the ancients, and so he received them 
' both 3 .' The Epistles of James and Jude, he says, gained 



(Hieron. Opp. XI. 649, ed. Migne) : 
Sicut et ipse ad Hebrseos perhibens 
dicit... Hilar. Comm. in 2 Tim. i. : 
Nam simili modo et in epistola ad 
Hebrseos scriptum est. Ambr. Opp. 
v. p. 411 (ed. 1567). 

1 At the Synod at Toledo (671 
A.D.) a special decree was made 
affirming the authority of the Apo- 
calypse : Apocalypsin librum mult- 
orum conciliorum auctoritas et sy- 
nodica sanctorum praesulum Roma- 
norum decreta Johannis evangelistae 
esse scribunt, et inter divinos libros 
recipiendum constituerunt : et quia 
plurimi sunt qui ejus auctoritatem 
non recipiant, eumque in ecclesia 
Dei praedicare contemnant ; si quis 
eum deinceps aut non receperit, aut 
a Pascha usque ad Pentecosten mis- 
sarum tempore in ecclesia non prse- 
dicaverit, excommunicationis senten- 
tiam habebit {Condi. Tol. IV. 17). 
These doubts are not I believe ex- 
pressed by any Latin father. 

2 Cf. App. D. In his treatise 
On Hebrew Names Jerome enume- 
rates all the books of the New Tes- 
tament in order, except the second 



Epistle of St John, which contains 
no name. The editions mark the 
names from the third Epistle (Dio- 
trephes, Demetrius, Gaius) as be- 
longing to the second. Cf. p. 336, 
n. 3. At the end, after noticing 
the Apocalypse, Jerome explains 
some names in the Epistle to Barna- 
tas. This book was written about 
390 A.D. The treatise On Illustri- 
ous Men was written in 392 a.d. 

3 Hieron. Ep. ad Bard, cxxix. 
3 (414 A.D.) : Illud nostris dicendum 
est hanc epistolam quae inscribitur 
ad Hebr&os non solum ab ecclesiis 
orientis sed ab omnibus retro eccle- 
siasticis Graeci sermonis scriptoribus 
quasi Pauli apostoli suscipi, licet 
plerique earn vel Barnabse vel de- 
mentis arbitrentur ; et nihil interesse 
cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici viri sit 
et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione cele- 
bretur. Quod si earn Latinorum 
consuetudo non recipit inter scriptu- 
ras Canonicas, nee Grsecorum qui- 
dem ecclesise Apocalypsin Joannis 
eadem libertate suscipiunt ; et tamen 
nos utramque suscipimus, nequa- 
quam hujus temporis consuetudinem 



en a ?. ii. 



in.] Jerome. 403 

authority in the course of time, having been at first dis- 
puted 1 ; and he explains the different styles of the first 
and second Epistles of St Peter by the supposition that 
the Apostle was forced to employ different 'interpreters' 
in writing them 2 . Besides the Canonical writings of the 
Xew Testament Jerome notices many other ecclesiastical 
and Apocryphal books, but he never attributes to them 
Canonical authority 3 . 

The testimony of Jerome may be considered as the and of the 
testimony of the Eoman Church ; for not only was he church, 
educated at Rome, but his labours on the text of Scripture 
were undertaken at the request of Damasus bishop of 
Rome ; and later popes republished the Canon which he 
recognized. Both Innocent 4 and Gelasius 5 pronounced all 492— 496 a.d. 



sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem 
sequentes, qui plerumque utriusque 
abutuntur testimoniis, non ut inter- 
dum de apocryphis facere solent 
quippe qui et gentilium litterarum 
raro utantur exemplis, sed quasi Ca- 
nonicis et ecclesiasticis. This very 
clear and important passage shews 
that when Jerome speaks of the 
' Epistle to the Hebrews as not reck- 
1 oned among St Paul's' in his letter 
to Paulinus (394 a.d.), we must sup- 
pose that the doubt applies to the 
authorship and not to the Canonicity 
of the writing. The distinct and de- 
cisive reference to ancient and con- 
stant (aiutuntur) testimony for the 
two disputed books deserves careful 
attention. Cf. Comm. in Eph. ad init. 

1 De Virr. III. 1 : Jacobus qui 
appellatur f rater Domini .... unam 
tantum scripsit epistolam, quae de 
septem Catholicis est, quae et ipsa ab 
alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita 
asseritur, licet paulatim tempore 
procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem. 

De Virr. III. 4 : Judas frater Ja- 
cobi parvam quae de septem Catholi- 
cis est epistolam reliquit. Et quia 
de libro Enoch qui apocryphus est 
in ea assumit testimonium, a pleris- 
que rejicitur, tamen auctoritatem 



vetustate jam et usu meruit et inter 
sanctas scripturas computatur. 

2 Hieron. Qucest. ad Hedib. 11. (1. 
p. 1002, ed. Migne) : Habebat ergo 
[Paulus] Titum interpretem (2 Cor. 
ii. 12, 13); sicut et beatus Petrus 
Marcum, cujus evangelium Petro 
narrante et illo scribente compositum 
est. Denique et duae epistolae quae 
feruntur Petri stylo inter se et cha- 
ractere discrepant structuraque ver- 
borum. Ex quo intelligimus diversis 
eum usum interpretibus. Cf. de 
Virr. III. 1 : Scripsit [Petrus] duas 
epistolas quae Catholicae nominantur; 
quarum secunda a plerisque ejus 
esse negatur propter styli cum priore 
dissonantiam. Sed et evangelium 
juxta Marcum, qui auditor ejus et 
interpres fuit, hujus dicitur. Libri 
autem e quibus unus Actorum ejus 
inscribitur, alius Evangelii, tertius 
Praedicationis, quartus Apocalypse- 
os, quintus Judicii [i. e. the Shepherd 
of Hennas], inter apocryphas scrip- 
turas repudiantur. 

3 Cf. App. B. 

4 Innoc. ad Exsuperium Tolos. 
Cf. App. D. The authenticity of 
this decretal however is -very ques- 
tionable. 

5 Credner (Zur Gesch. d. K. § iv.) 



404 



The Age of Councils. 



[part 



chap. ii. the books of the New Testament which we now receive, 

and these only, to be Canonical. And the judgment 

which was accepted at Rome was current throughout 

c. 340— 397 a-d. Italy. Ambrose at Milan, Rufinus at Aquileia 1 , and Phi- 

tc. 387 a!d. lastrms at Brescia 2 , completely confirm the same Canon 3 . 

The canon of The influence of Augustine upon the Western Church 

Augustine. , u ° x . 

was hardly inferior to that of Jerome; and both combined 
to support the received Canon of the New Testament 4 . 
Yet even in respect to this their characteristic differences 
appear. Jerome accepted the tacit judgment of the 
Church as a whole, and before that laid aside his doubts. 
Augustine, while receiving as Scripture the same Apo- 
stolic writings as Jerome, admitted that the partial rejec- 
tion of a book detracts from its authority 5 . He thus ex- 



has examined at great length the 
triple recension of the famous decre- 
tal On Ecclesiastical Books. His 
conclusion briefly is that (1) In its 
original form it was drawn up in 
the time .of Gelasius, c. 500 a.d. 
(2) It was then enlarged in Spain, 
c. 500—700 A.D. (3) Next pub- 
lished as a decretal of Hormisdas 
(Pope 514 — 523 a.d.) in Spain, with 
additions. (4) And lastly variously 
altered in later times. Credner, a. 
a. 0. s. 153. Cf. App. D. 

1 Kuf. de Symb. Apost. § 36. Cf. 
App. D. 

2 Philastr. Hair. lx. lxi. 32. Cf. 
App. D. 

3 Lucifer of Cagliari (t37o a.d.) 
in Sardinia quotes most of the books 
of the New Testament, including 
the Epistle to the Hebrews : Paulus 
dicit ad Hebraeos...Hebr. iii. 5 sqq. 
(Lucif. de non Conv. c. Hozr. p. 782 
B, ed. Migne). To the testimony of 
1/ucifer may be added that of Faus- 
TINUS one of his followers, who fre- 
quently quotes the Epistle to the 
Hebrews as St Paul's : Paulus Apo- 
stolus... ait in Epistola sua...Hebr. 
i. 13 {de Trin. 11. 13. Cf. ib. I v. 2 ; 
Lit. Free, ad Impp. 27). 



Cassiodorus (or Cassiodorius, b. 
468 — t c. 560 A.D.), chief minister of 
Theodoric, in his treatise de Insti- 
tutione Divinarum IAtterarum gives 
three Catalogues of the Holy Scrip- 
tures: (1) according to Jerome, (2) 
according to Augustine, (3) accord- 
ing to the ' ancient translation.' In 
the two former the Canon of the 
New Testament of course agrees 
with our own. In the last he omits 
fhe two shorter Epistles of St John, 
but the evidence of Cod. D has 
been brought forward to shew that 
they were included in the Vetus La- 
Una. Cf. p. 226, and App. D. 

4 Augustine has given a list of the 
books of the New Testament exactly 
agreeing with our present Canon : 
de Doctr. Christ. 11. 12, 13. Cf. 
App. D. 

5 Aug. I. c. : Tenebit igitur hunc 
modum in Scripturis Canonicis, ut 
eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ec- 
clesiis Catholicis prseponat eis quas 
quaedam non accipiunt : in eis vero 
quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus 
praeponat eas quas plures graviores- 
que accipiunt eis quas pauciores 
minorisque auctoritatis ecclesiae te- 
nent. 



in.] Augustine. 405 

tended to others a certain freedom of judgment, and even chap. ii. 
exercised it himself. It is very probable that he did not 
regard the Epistle to the Hebrews as St Paul's; and at 
least in his later works he sedulously avoided calling it 
by the Apostle's name 1 . But while he hesitated as to the 
authorship of the Epistle, he had no scruples about its 
Canonicity. And he uses all the other books of the New 
Testament without reserve, alluding only once, as far as I 
know, to the doubts about the Apocalypse 2 . 

The Canon of the New Testament which was sup- Thu Canon 

x most vnddy 

ported by the learning of Jerome and the independent spread 

r J t ° x throughout Vi€ 

judgment of Augustine soon gained universal acceptance west, and 
wherever Latin was spoken. It was received in Gaul and 
Spain, and even in Britain and Ireland. Eucherius of 
Lyons in the fifth century, Isidore of Seville at the close 
of the sixth century 3 , Bede at Wearmouth in the seventh 
century, and Sedulius in Ireland in the eighth or ninth 
century, witness to its reception throughout the West. 
And with the exceptions already noticed, all the evidence 
which can be gathered from other writers, — from Pruden- 
tius in Spain, and from Hilary, Sulpicius, Prosper, Sal- 
vian, and Gennadius in Gaul, — confirms their testimony. 

From this time the Canon of the New Testament in undispuudto 
the West was no longer a problem, but a tradition. If old Reformation. 
doubts were mentioned, it was rather as a display of eru- 
dition than as an effort of criticism 4 .. 

1 This is well shown by Lardner, iv. 76) ; cum legas ad Hebraeos (in. 

ch. cxvn. 17.4. The quotations in 151); illius sacrae auctor Epistolae 

the Opus zmperfectum c. Julianum (vi. 22). 

(written at the close of Augustine's 2 Serm. ccxcix. : Et si forte tu 
life) are conclusive. Julian himself qui ista [Pelagii] sapis banc Scrip- 
quotes the Epistle as the work of turam (Apoc. xi. 3—12) non acce- 
' the Apostle' (Aug. c. Jul. in. 40 ; pisti ; aut si accipis contemnis... 
v. 2, 23). Augustine in reply uses 3 Cf. App. D. 
the following circumlocutions : quod 4 References are given by Hody, 
vidit qui scribens ad Hebraeos dixit Credner, and Reuss, Gesch. d. Heil. 
(1. 48 ; IV. 104) ; Sancta scriptura Schr? §§ 328 ff. See also Bible in 
(IL 179) ; sicut scriptum est (in. 38 - r the Church, chapters vni. ix. 



406 The Age of Councils. [part 

chap. ii. Three typical examples of the mediaeval treatment of 

o/A&i^! ent the New Testament Canon will suffice to shew what was 
the amount of interest which was felt in it and how the 
interest was satisfied. The first example is taken from a 
short Anglo-Saxon treatise on the New Testament written 
by Alfric Abbot of Cerne (989 A.D.), and afterwards, as it 
is supposed, Archbishop of Canterbury 1 . ' There are/ he 
says 2 , '4. books written concerning Christ himselfe, one 
' of them wrote Mathew, that followed our. Sauiour, and 
' was one of his disciples, while heere hee liued, and saw 
c his miracles, and after his passion wrote the, such as 
' came to his mind in this book, and in y e Hebrew tongue, 
'for their sakes who beleeued on God, among y e Iewes. 
'And he is the first Euangelist in this volume. Marke 
' the Gospeller, who followed Peter for instruction, and was 
' his own son begotten in the Lord by his word, he wrote 
' the second booke from the mouth of Peter, concerning 
c such things as he learned of his doctrine in y e city of 
'Rome: as he was entreated by the faithfull there be- 
'leeuing in God through Peters preaching. Luke the 
' Euangelist wrote the third booke ; who from his child- 
' hood followed the Apostles and after accompanied Paid 
' in his travell and learned of him the doctrine of the Gos- 
' pell in sincerity of life : and this booke of Christ compiled 
'in Achcea and in the Greeke tongue, according as he 
'had learned by y e instruction of Paul and the other 
'Apostles. Iohn the Apostle began in Asia, entreated by 
' the Bishops there, to write and y*' in Greeke the fourth 
' book, concerning Christ's diuinity : and of the deepe nrys- 
v teries that were reuealed vnto him, when he leaned on 

1 Wright's Biographia Britannica written about the lime of King Ed- 
Literarta, i. pp. 480 ff. gar... London, 1623 — republished in 

2 The translation is that given by 1638 under the title Divers Ancient 
W. L'Isle, A Saxon Treatise con- Monuments in the Saxon Tongue... — 
cerning the Old and New 'Testament, pp. 24 ff. 



in.] Alfric. 407 

' his louely brest wherin was hid the treasure of heauen. chap. ii. 

* These be the 4 waters of one welspring, which run from 

' paradise far and wide ouer y e people of God. And these 

' 4. Euangelists were foresignified by the vision of Ezechiel. 

' Mathew in mans shape, Marke in a lions, Luke in a calfs, 

' and Iohn in an eagles, for y e mysteries by them signified. . . 

1 Peter the Apostle wrote two Epistles, but larger than 
'are read at Masse, which auaile much to the establishing 
' of Faith, and are reckoned in Canon of the Bible. So 
'Lames the lust wrote one Epistle of great instruction for 
- all men, who obserue any Christianity in their life. And 
6 Lohn y e Euangelist to the honor of God compiled three 
' Epistles, which are three bookes full of loue in teaching 
' the people. Ladas the Apostle wrote also an Epistle, not 
'the reprobate Ludas, who betrayed Iesus ; but holy Ludas 
'that euer followed him. And heere are now 7. bookes of 
'this ranke. 

'The Apostle Paul wrote many Epistles: for Christ set 
'him to be a teacher of all nations, and in true sincerity 
'he set downe the course of life, which the faithfull ought 
'to hold, who betake themselues and. their life vnto God: 
'fifteene Epistles wrote this one Apostle, to the nations by 
'him conuerted vnto the faith: which are large books in 
'the Bible, and make much for our amendment, if we 
' follow his doctrine, that was teacher of the Gentiles. He 
'wrote to the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, and 
'one to the Galathians, and one to the Ephesians, and one 
' to the Philippians ; two to the Thessalonians, and one to 
'the Colossians, and one to the Hebreues: two to his owne 
'disciple Timotheus, and one to Titus, and one to Philemon, 
'and one to the Laodiceans: fifteene in all, [sounding] as 
' loud as thunder to [the eares of] faithfull people 

' Luke y e Euangelist, who was a Physitian while he 
'liued compiled two books for the health of our soules. 



408 The Age of Councils. [part 

chap. ii. ' One of them is the Gospell of Christ, the other is called 
' Actus Apostolorum ; that is in English : the Acts of 
'Apostles, [shewing] what they did while they were to- 
gether, and how afterward they trauelled into farre 
'countries as Iesus had commanded them in his holy 
' Gospell, that they by their preaching should teach and 
' conuert all nations to the faith 

'Iohn liued here longest of them (the Apostles) all, 
'and he wrote in his banishment the booke called Apo- 
' calypsis, that is, the Reuelatio, which Christ manifested 
1 vnto him by vision in spirit, cocerning our Sauiour him- 
' selfe and his Church : as also of doomesday and the 
■ deuillish Antichrist ; and of the resurrection to euerlasting 
' life : And this is the last booke of the Bible 

1 All teachers who take not their doctrine and examples 
• out of these holy bookes are like those of whom Christ 
( himselfe thus said : Ccecus si cceco ducatum prcestet, ambo 

1 in foueam cadent : but such teachers, as take their 

' examples and doctrine from hence, whether it be out of 
'the old Testament or the new, are such as Christ himselfe 
- againe spake of in these words : Omnis scriba doctus in 
1 regno ccelorum similis est homini patrifamilias, qui profert 

' de thesauro suo nova et Vetera ' 

TheApocry- The history of the Epistle to the Laodicenes 1 which is 

phal Epistle to r _ . 1 ^ . , 

the Laodi- reckoned by Alfric without hesitation among the Jkpistles 

cenes. J , . . 

of St Paul forms one of the most interesting episodes in 
the literary history of the Bible. The earliest traces 
of the existence of the present Epistle are found in the 
sixth century, for there is not the slightest reason to 
•connect the existing Latin compilation which from that 
date bears the name with the Greek Epistle to the 
Laodicenes which was current in the second century 2 . 

1 The text of the Epistle is given 2 Canon Murat. App. C. It may 

from English Manuscripts in App.E. however be the one which Jerome 



Hi.] The Epistle to the Laodicenes. 409 

In the sixtli century the compilation had a wide currency, chap i, 
It is found in the Speculum published by Mai, and likewise in 
the Manuscript of the Vulgate at La Cava, which contain 
also the interpolated testimony in the Epistle of St John. 
Towards the middle of the same century it was introduced 
into a Manuscript of the Latin New Testament which was 
corrected by the hand of Victor of Capua and is still pre- 
served at Fulda From this time it occurs very frequently 
in Western Manuscripts of the Bible, as in the great 
Gothic Bible of Toledo (8th cent.), in the Book of Armagh 1 
(written A.D. 807), in the so-called Charlemagne's Bible of 
the British Museum (9th cent.) and in many other mag- 
nificent copies, as for example the great Bible of the 
King's Library 2 , which seem to have been designed for 
church use. 

One important testimony contributed in all probability 
very greatly to the popular estimation of the book. 
Gregory the Great at the close of the sixth century dis- 
tinctly assigned the Epistle to the Apostle Paul, though 
he admitted its uncanonicity. 'Though he (St Paul) 
k wrote,' he says, i fifteen Epistles, yet the holy Church does 
'not hold more than fourteen 3 .' As an almost necessary 

speaks of in Catal. 5: Legunt qui- rjv ol irarepes 7]uQv diredoxiuacrau (bs 

darn et ad Laodicenses sed ab omni- avrov aXXorpiav ko.1 to /card Qajfidu 

bus exploditur. The only Greek ^Lauix^oL rr ape L<j-qy cry ov euayyeXiou 

reference which can be fairly applied owep 77 KadoXiKT] eKKXyjcia d-s dXXo- 

to this Latin Epistle is in the Acts rpiov evae^Qs air o<jt peeper ai. 

of the second Council of Xicaea ^787 1 But with the note Sed Hirunu- 

a.d.) when the circulation of the mus earn negat esse Pauli. Betham, 

Epistle ol the Western Churches Irish Ant iq. Researches, n. 263. 

was too general to escape observa- 2 Brit. Mus. "King's 1 E vii. 

tion even among the Greeks. Concil. viii. 

ii. Xic. Act. vi. Tom. v.; Mansi, xni. 3 Gregor. Magn. Moral, xxxv. 

293 (Labbe, VII. 475): irpeirov ovv 20, 48 ^al. 15, 25), in Job, xlii. 16. 

£<jtl iravrl xpiCTiavcp irapeyy-pdnruv The reason which Gregory gives 

(3ip\updKp6aat.v TroLOvpLevy tclvttjs 5ta- for the rejection of the Epistle from 

WTireiv kclI pLTjb" oXus Trpocrd^x €<J ^ aL ' the Canou is most instructive and 

/cat yap rod deiov diroaroXov irpos Aao- characteristic. Et recte vita sanctae 

5lk€Ts (piperai -rXaarri €tti<ttoXtj tv Ecclesiae multiplicata per decern et 

Ticrt fiipXois rov dirocTToXov eyKeipLevrj, quatuor computatur, quia utrumque 



410 The Age of Councils. [part 

chap. ii. consequence the positive part of his statement was more 
effectual than the negative limitation of it. If St Paul 
wrote the letter, it could not fail to be prized by faithful 
Christians. Another circumstance which favoured the 
reception of the letter was the supposed reference to it in 

Coi. iv. 16. the Epistle to the Colossians. 

To an uncritical age the mere existence of a letter 
which bore the name of one known to have been sanctioned 
by Apostolic authority was held to be an adequate proof 
of its own claims to respect. Haymo bishop of Hal- 

1 853 a.d. berstadt l gives expression to this simplicity of faith in a 
very modest form; 'The Apostle enjoins that the Epistle 
'to the Laodicenes (i.e. the Latin cento) be read to the 
' Colossians, because, though it is very short and not reckon- 
' ed in the Canon, it still has some use.' A few generations 
afterwards John of Salisbury puts forward the argument 
based upon the assumed reference in the most distinct 
shape. ' Although the Epistle is rejected by all, as Jerome 
'says, yet it was written by the Apostle. Nor is this 
'opinion based on the conjecture of others, but confirmed 
'by the testimony of the Apostle himself, for he mentions 
' it in his Epistle to the Colossians . . . V 

Thus it was that the Apocryphal Epistle passed into 
the early vernacular translations of the New Testament. 
It is said that fourteen editions of one or more German 
versions were printed before Luther's time ; and it occurs 
in the first Bohemian Bible (1488) 3 . It is found also in 

Testament um custodiens et tarn se- Why this special Epistle was rejected 

cundum legis decalogum quam se- to render the mystical lesson com- 

• cundum quatuor Evangelii libros plete does not appear, 
vivens usque ad perfectionis culmen l Coram, in Coloss. iv. 

extenditur. TJnde et Paulus apos- 2 Johan. Sarisb. Ep. T43 (ed. 

tolus quamvis epistolas quindecim Migne). 

scripserit sancta tamen Ecclesia non 3 Anger, Der Laodicenerhricf, 
amplius quam quatuordecim tenet 152. It is not however found in an 
ut ex ipso Epistolarum numero os- earlier edition of the New Testa- 
tend eret quod doctor egregius legis ment (14 75). 
et evangelii secreta rimatus esset. 



in.] The Epistle to the Laodicenes. 411 

an Albigensian Version at Lyons where it occupies its ciiai\ ii. 
usual place after the Epistle to the Colossians 1 . It was 
not included by Wycliffe in his Bible, but it is found added 
to it in some Manuscripts and in two different renderings". 
One of these may be given, for though the Epistle contains 
nothing in itself remarkable, the position which it occupies 
in the history of the Mediaeval Canon invests it with a 
peculiar interest 3 . 

'Here hiqynneih the epistle to the Laodicenses, wliich is r/,? Fpi^tie to 

? J „ L tlieLaodi- 

' not in the Canon. cenes. 

'Poul apostle, not of men, ne by man, but bi Ihesu 
1 Crist, to the britheren that ben at Laodice, grace to 5011, 
'and pees of God the fadir, and of the Lord Ihesu Crist. 
'I do thankyngis to my God bi al my preier, that }e be 
'dwelling and lastyng in him, abiding the biheest in the 
c day of doom. For neithir the veyn spekyng of summe 
'vnwise men hath lettide 3011, the whiche wolden turne 
1 30U fro the treuthe of the gospel, that is prechid of me. 
'And now hem that ben of me to the profit of 
'truthe of the gospel, God schal make disseruying, 
'and doyng benygnyte of werkis, and helthe of euer- 
' lasting lijf. And now my boondis ben open, which Y 
1 suffre in Crist Ihesu, in whiche Y glade and ioie. And 
' that is to me euerlastyng helthe, that this same thing be 
' doon by 30ure preiers, and mynystryng of the Holi Goost, 
1 either bi lijf, either bi deeth. Forsothe to me it is lijf to 
1 lyue in Crist, and to die ioie. And his mercy schal do 
' in 5011 the same thing, that 3e mown haue the same loue, 
'and that 3e be of 00 will. Therfore, xe weel biloued 
1 britheren, holde }e, and do 3e in the dreede of God, as ^e 

1 Revue de Theologie, Strasb. v. by Lewis, and after biin by Anger 

335. I. c. This text is found substan- 

2 -See p. 412, n. i. tially in eight other copies collated 

3 The text given is from Forshall by Forshall and Madden and in the 

and Madden, who likewise print the imperfect copy taken by Anger from 

second version, which is also given a Dresden Manuscript. 



412 The Age of Councils. [part 

chap. ii. c han herde the presence of me; and lijf schal be to 3ou 
' withouten eende. Sotheli it is God that worchith in 3011. 
'And, my weel biloued britheren, do 3e without eny with- 
' drawyng what euer thingis 3e don. Ioie ^e in Crist, and 
'eschewe ye men defoulid in lucre, either foul wynnyng 
' Be alle 30ure askyngis open anentis God, and be ye stide- 
' fast in the witt of Crist. And do 3e tho thingis that ben 
'hool, and trewe, and chaast, and iust, and able to be 
'loued; and kepe 3e in herte tho thingis that 36 haue herd 
' and take ; and pees schal be to 30U. Alle holi men 
' greten 3OU weel. The grace of oure Lord Ihesu Crist be 
' with 30ure spirit. And do ye that pistil of Colocensis to 
' be red to 30U. 

1 Here eendiih the pistil to Laodieensis 1 ? 

uvaoo/st The progress of thought which brought forth so many 

noble results in the twelfth century added nothing to the 
historic appreciation of the Canon of the Bible. Nay 
rather the love of symmetry and completeness which pre- 
vailed threatened to decide its contents by general princi- 
ples of arrangement, yet in such a manner as to leave the 
line of separation between the Holy Scriptures and other 

'■ I J 2T" 1141 books wavering and undefined. . Hugo of St Victor may be 
taken ^ one of the greatest representatives of his age, and 
in him this tendency finds a clear expression. e All divine 
' Scripture,' he says, e is contained in the two Testaments, 
' that is to say the Old and the New. Both Testaments 
'are divided into three separate classes [of books]. The 
1 Old Testament contains the Law, the Prophets, the Hagio- 
' grapha. The New Testament the Gospel, the Apostles, the 

1 Forshall and Madden, IV. pp. ' of the later version, none of which 

438, 439. 'The Epistle to the Lao- 'appears to have been written early 

' diceans was excluded as spurious 'in the fifteenth century. Another 

'both by Wycliffe and Purvey. 'but nearly coeval version of the 

' Subsequently however it was trans- ' same Epistle occurs in a single 

'lated together with its argument 'copy' (Id. I. p. xxxii.). 
' and is found in several Manuscripts 



in.] John of Salisbury. 413 

'Fathers.... In the New Testament there are in the First chap, it 
'Class the four Gospels. In the Second Class there are 
'also four Books, the Acts, the fourteen Epistles of Paul 
'combined in one volume, the Canonical [i.e. Catholic] Epi- 
1 sties, the Apocalypse. In the Third Class the Decretals 
'hold the first place ;... then the writings of the holy 
'Fathers... which are numberless. These writings of the 
'Fathers are not however reckoned in the text of the 
'Divine Scriptures, since in* the Old Testament, as we 
'have said, there are some books which are not included 
' in the Canon and yet are read, as the Wisdom of Solomon 
'and the like.... In these classes however the harmony of 
'both Testaments is most clearly seen. Because as the 
' Law is followed by the Prophets and the Prophets by the 
' Hagiographa, so the Gospel is followed by the Apostles 
'and the Apostles by the Doctors. And it is a result of 
'the marvellous method of the divine dispensation, that 
'while the full and perfect truth is found in the several 
'Scriptures separately, no one of them is superfluous 1 / 

One more testimony will bring our notice of the Medi- JossqfSaUs- 

J ° bury. 

seval period to a close. This is taken from a letter of c -jj^-u8o ~ 
John of Salisbury, the secretary and partisan of Becket, 
whose devotion to his master in later times when he was 
raised to the see of Chartres led him to describe himself 
as bishop 'by the divine favour and the merits of St 
'Thomas 2 / The letter was written during his exile in 
France for Becket's cause, and is addressed to Henry I. 
Count of Champagne. Henry, who himself took a very 
active part in the politics of his time, had sent a series of 
questions to John of Salisbury which throw a strange 1165-6 a.d. 
light upon the studies of the royal statesman. He wished 
.to know what Jerome meant by the 'table of the Sun 

1 Hugo de S. Vict, de Scriptura, 3 Wright, Biographia Britannica, 

6. The original text is given in II. 235. 
App. D. 



Hi The Age of Councils. [part 

chap. ii. 'which was said to have been seen by Apollonius,' and 
what were 'centos from Virgil and Homer/ and in the 
first place of all what John believed to be the number of 
the books of the Old and New Testaments, and whom he 
held to be their authors. In reply to this John first refers 
to the treatise of Cassiodorus upon the subject and then 
continues in most remarkable words : ' But because my 
' own belief on this subject is questioned, I consider that it 
' is not of much importance either to me or to others what 
' opinion be held. For whether we hold this opinion or 
'that, it brings no damage to our salvation. But to in- 
'dulge in a fierce controversy on a subject which is either 
' indifferent in its result or of little moment is as bad as a 
'sharp discussion about goats' ivool between friends, 
1 Moreover I consider that he rather assails the faith who 
'affirms too confidently that which is not certain, than 
'one who abstains from a rash decision and leaves in 
'uncertainty a subject on which he observes the Fathers 
'disagree and which he is wholly unable to investigate. 
'Nevertheless our opinion can and ought to be more 
'inclined to the side which is supported by all or the 
'greater number or the most famous and distinguished 
'men.... Therefore I follow Jerome... who reckons twenty- 
' two books of the Old Testament divided into three classes. 
'...As for the Shepherd [which he mentions] I do not 
' know whether it still exists anywhere ; but there can be 
' no doubt about the reference because Jerome and Beda 
' say that they saw and read it. To these are added 
t c eight volumes of the New Testament, the four Gospels, 
'fifteen Epistles of Paul embraced in one volume, though 
' it is a common and almost universal opinion that there 
'are only fourteen, ten to churches and four to persons, if 
' we must reckon the Epistle to the Hebrews among the 
'Epistles of Paul, as Jerome appears to do.... The fifteenth 



III.] John of Salisbury. 415 

'is that which is written to the Church of the Laodicenes, chap, i 

' and though, as Jerome says, it is rejected by all, yet it 

4 was written by the Apostle. ... The seven Canonical Epi- 

' sties in one volume come next ; then the Acts in another, 

1 and last the Apocalypse. And that this is the number 

' of the books which are admitted into the Canon of the 

' Holy Scriptures is a constant and undoubted tradition in 

'the Church, which enjoy such authority with all that 

'they leave no room for gainsaying or doubt in sound 

c minds, because they are written by the finger of God.... 

'Opinions vary as to the authors, though in the Church 

1 the opinion has prevailed that they were written by those 

' whose names they bear.... But why should we be anxious, 

' most illustrious Lord, to discuss various opinions on the 

'subject, since we are agreed that the Holy Spirit is the 

'one Author of all Holy Scriptures.... It is as if when you 

' were certain of the writer, a question was raised about 

' the pen with which the book was written 1 .' 

Thus the strange freedom of the first words of the 
mediaeval scholar falls back into the devout confession of 
simple faith. Criticism is silent, but in the language of 
natural instinct there is an antagonism of thought which 
is prophetic of future conflict. A desire for liberty has to 
be reconciled with a desire for trustful repose : the craving 
for individual conviction with the pious belief in a divine 
order of history. To assert, to compare, to harmonize 
these principles was the work of the Reformation, and 
that in the discussions on the formation and authority of 
the Bible no less than in the examination of the central 
doctrines of the Christian belief. 

3 Johan. Sarisb. Ep. 143 (ed. Migne). The original text is given in 
App. D. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 



Dixit veritatem, pertulit irdquitatem,, allaturus est (zquiialem. 

A UGUSTIXUS. 



chap. in. MPHE sixteenth century places us again face to face with 
IheGzrmal J- the combined powers of the East and West 1 . For a 
r BMe? or m time each had gone on fulfilling its own work, but the fall 
of Constantinople brought them once more into contact. 
It was not only that 'Greece had arisen from the dead 
' with the New Testament in her hand/ but the East had 
risen with a Bible which was again felt to be a record of 
real facts, able to quicken faith amidst the conflicts of a 
world struggling towards a new life. We have already 
seen generally the part which Palestine and Greece and 
Rome had to fulfil in the history of the Canon. A work 
was still reserved for the German races, and when the 
time came for its accomplishment men were found to 
do it. Whatever may be thought of some of Luther's 
special judgments, however hasty and self-willed and im- 
perious they may be, it is impossible to read his comments 
.on Holy Scripture without feeling that he realizes its 
actual historic worth and consequent spiritual meaning in 
a way which was unknown before. For him the words of 
Apostles and Prophets are c living words/ direct and im- 

1 I have ventured to transcribe in this chapter much that is given in 
the Bible in the Church, chap. x. 



PART III.] The Debates on the Canon. 417 

mediate utterances of the Holy Spirit, penetrating to the chap. hi. 
inmost souls of men, and not mere premisses for argu- 
ments or proofs. 

This intense sense of the personal character of Holy The elements 

. . . combined in 

Scripture, so to speak, springing out of the recognition of the discussion 

r . ..... ° on the Bill" in 

its primary historical origin, which found a bold and at the l6th cea - 
times an exaggerated expression in Luther, was more or 
less characteristic of the whole period. On all sides there 
was a tendency in the sixteenth century, even when it 
was repressed, to appeal to history and reason. The mere 
authority of usage, which at earlier times had been denied 
only by scholars, was then questioned by many in all 
classes. The study of Greek had made criticism possible, 
and laid open the true approach -to the investigation of 
the growth of the Church. But still the real force of 
historical evidence was as yet imperfectly understood. 
The materials for testing and tracing to its source a cur- 
rent tradition were still scattered or unknown. And even 
those who felt most deeply that the Books of the Bible 
had their origin in human life, among men of like pas- 
sions with themselves, were yet far removed from a simple 
and absolute trust in their historical transmission and 
confirmation by the body to which they were delivered. 
On the one hand a supposed intuitive perception of the 
Divine authority of Scripture, immediate and final, was 
assumed to exist in the individual and to supersede the 
judgment of the Christian society. On the other an 
ecclesiastical usage was invested, as it were, with a crea- 
tive power, by which books which had been deliberately 
set aside in a second rank were raised to a new dignitv as 
infallible sources of doctrine. 

As doctrinal controversy grew wider and keener, the A P antago- 
question of the Canon was debated with a vehemence cipUs - ' 
before unknown. To concede to the Church in every age 

C EE 



418 The Sixteenth Century. [part. 

chap. nr. the prerogative of extending by its own power the range 
of the authoritative sources and tests of doctrine was (as 
it appeared) to sacrifice the historical basis of a faith once 
delivered to men. And at the same time the denial of 
the existence of an absolute living criterion of truth 
seemed to make it necessary to transfer to the Bible in 
its collected form every attribute of that infallibility 
which before had been supposed to reside in the Church 
or in its earthly head. The collection of Holy Scripture 
was first narrowed to the strict limits fixed by ancient 
criticism, at least in the Old Testament, and then step by 
step it was taken out of the field of historical inquiry. A 
movement which began by the assertion of the value of 
historical evidence ended in the suppression of all histo- 
rical criticism by the later Lutheran and Genevan schools. 

The debate It is not part of our subiect to trace the effects for 

guided by feel' x ° 

tag more than good and for evil which followed from the general pre- 
fer criticism. ° . . . 

valence of this later theory of the Bible in Protestant 
Churches up to our own time. However repugnant it 
may be to the wider views of ecclesiastical history which 
are now opened to us, it would not perhaps be difficult to 
shew that it fulfilled an important function in preserving 
a true sense of the Divine authority of Holy Scripture as 
a whole during a period of transition. If the tendency of 
the later schools was to reduce the Bible to a mere text 
book, the Book itself was in danger of falling to pieces 
under the free treatment of Luther. At present it is ne- 
cessary only to notice that the controversy on the Canon 
in the sixteenth century — the first occasion on which the 
subject was debated as a question of doctrine in the 
Catholic Church — was really conducted by feeling rather 
than by external evidence. The evidence on the subject 
was not available, even if the disputants could have made 
use of it. But a more summary method offered itself. 



in.] Cardinal Ximcnes. 419 

In a word the Romanists followed popular usage, regard- ciiap.iii. 
ing the Bible as one only out of many original sources of 
truth : the Lutherans, or more strictly Luther, judged the 
written Word by the Gospel contained in it, now in fuller 
now in scantier measure, to which the Word in man bore 
witness: the Calvinists, accepting without hesitation the 
Old Testament from the Jewish Church and the New 
Testament from the Christian Church, set up the two 
records as the outward test and spring of all truth, abso- 
lutely complete in itself and isolated from all history. - 

It would be a fruitful inquiry to follow out the growth 
and antagonism of the principles involved in these general 
views : to trace the truth which each embodies and exag- 
gerates : to indicate the influence -which partial or faulty 
teaching on Scripture exercised on other parts of the 
Christian doctrine in which they were included ; and even 
in the purely historical sketch to which we are now 
limited a reference to these most interesting questions will 
give a unity and significance to what might otherwise 
appear a fragmentary discussion. 

§ i. The Roman Church. 
At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist carding 
scholars remained faithful to the judgment on the Canon 1437^151*7 a.j* 
which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Car- 
dinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott 
Biblia Complutensia — the lasting monument of the Uni- 
versity which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and 
the great glory of the Spanish press — separates the Apo- 
crypha from the Canonical books. The books 1 , he writes, 
which are without the Canon, which the Church receives 
rather for the edification of the people than for the esta- 
blishment of ecclesiastical doctrines, are given only in 
Greek, but with a double translation 2 . 

1 Prolog, in. &. 3 Sixtus Senensis (seep. 427) with 

E E 2 



420 



The Sixteenth Century. 



[PAET 



CHAP. III. 



Erasmus. 

1467—1536 A.D. 



His opinion 
on Hebrews. 



The Epistle of 
iSt James. 



Cardinal Ximenes spoke only of the disputed books of 
the Old Testament. His great literary rival went further. 
Erasmus, in his edition of the New Testament (the first 
published in the original Greek A,D. 15 16) which was 
dedicated to Leo X., notices the doubts which had been 
raised as to the controverted books, without pronouncing 
more than a critical judgment upon them. Thus he dis- 
tinctly maintains that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not 
written by St Paul, both on the ground of its style, and 
also from questionable statements on points of doctrine 
(ch. vi. 6), while he prefaces his criticism with this remark : 
' I would wish you, good reader, not to consider this Epi- 
6 stle of less value because many have doubted whether it 
'is the work of Paul or some other writer. Whoever 
' wrote it it is worthy of being read by Christians on many 
'accounts. And though in expression it is very widely 
6 different from the style of Paul, it is most closely akin to 
'the spirit and soul (pectus) of Paul. But while it cannot 
' be shewn conclusively who wrote it, we may gather from 
'very many arguments that it was written by some other 
' than Paul/ Again at the close of his Commentary on 
St James he says : ' The authorship of this Epistle also, 
'although it is filled with salutary precepts, was ques- 
' tioned in former times. For it does not seem to present 
' in every part the dignity and gravity which we look for 
'in an Apostle.... For my own part, though I will fight 
' (digladiabor) with no one on the subject, I heartily affirm 
' (probo et amplector) the authority of the Epistle. But I 
1 am surprised that on these questions no people are more 
'bigoted in their statements than those who cannot tell in 
'what language it was originally written.... So great a man 



an obvious reference to this passage 
alters it most significantly: 'The 
' books which are without the Canon 
[ of the Hebrews, which the Church 



1 reads for edification, are given only 
'in Greek, <fcc.' (Bihl. S. IV. Fran- 
ciscus Xymenius). 



in.] Erasmus. 421 

1 as Jerome was in doubt, and expresses his opinion with chap. hi. 
'care. We are reckless in proportion to our ignorance/ 
In like manner he notices the doubts as to the second 
Epistle of St Peter and the Epistle of St Jude, and ex- 
pressly assigns the second and third Epistles of St John to 2 and 3 John, 
the 'Presbyter.' On the Apocalypse he speaks at greater The Apocalypse, 
length ; and his words are so characteristic that they may 
be quoted here as a singular illustration of the manner 
in which the best scholars of the sixteenth century ap- 
proached the criticism of Holy Scripture 1 . 'St Jerome/ 
he says, 'bears witness that the Apocalypse w 7 as not re- 
'ceived by the Greeks even in his time; and moreover 

I that some most learned men had assailed the whole sub- 
' stance of the book with severe criticisms as a mere 
' romance, on the ground that it presents no trace of Apo- 
' stolic dignity, but contains only an ordinary history dis- 
'guised in symbols. To say nothing at present of these 
'opinions, I have been somewhat moved by other conjec- 
' tures and also by the fact that the author while writing 
' the Revelation is so anxious to introduce his own name : 
' I John, I John, just as if he were writing a bond and not 
'a book, and that not only against the custom of the 
'other Apostles but much more against his own custom, 
'since in his Gospel, though the subject is less exalted, he 
'nowhere gives his own name, but indicates it by slight 
' references, and Paul when compelled to speak of his own 
' visions sets forth the facts under the person of another. 
' But how often does our author when describing most mys- 
'terious conversations with Angels introduce the phrase 

I I John. Further in the Greek Manuscripts which I 
'have seen the title is not of John the Evangelist, but of 
'John the Divine; not to mention that the style is widely 
' different from that of the Gospel and Epistle. For though 

1 Nov. Test. p. 625. 



422 The Sixteenth Century. [part 

chap. in. 'we may admit that there would be little trouble in ex- 
' plaining some passages falsely assailed on the ground 
'that they are tinged with heretical ideas, these argu- 
'ments, I say, would somewhat move me to decline to 
'believe that the work belongs to John the Evangelist, 
' unless the general consent of the world called me to an- 
other conclusion, but especially the authority of the 
' Church, if at least the Church approves of this work with 
' the feeling that she wishes it to be considered the work 
' of John the Evangelist and to be held of equal weight 
'with the other Canonical books.... In fact I observe that 
1 ancient theologians quote passages from this book rather 
'for illustration and ornament than for the support of a 
'serious proposition. Since even among jewels there is 
' some difference ; and some gold is purer and better than 
'other. In sacred things also one thing is more sacred 
'than another. He who is spiritual, as Paul says, judges 
' all things, and is judged by no one.' 

With this strange conflict of criticism and authority, 
with this half suppressed irony and insinuated doubt, 
with this assertion of a final appeal to private judgment, 
the great work of Erasmus closes ; and it is probable that 
the last words best express the freedom of his real judg- 
ment. For some time his notes seem to have been un- 
challenged ; but the spread of the reformed opinions 
directed attention to the statements which they contained 
in opposition to the current opinion of the Koman Church. 
An attack was made upon them before the Theological 
Faculty of Paris, the Sorbonne, in 1524; and in 1526 the 
French doctors considered and condemned a large number 
of propositions which were taken from his New Testa- 
ment, and the defence which he had previously made. In 
this censure the Sorbonne declared that 'it was an error 
' of faith to doubt as to the author of one of the books' (of 



III.] 



Cardinal Caietan. 



423 



the New Testament). 'Though formerly some have chap. hi. 
1 doubted about the authors of particular books/ the deci- 
sion runs, 'yet after that the Church has received them 
'under the name of such authors by its universal usage, 
'and has approved them by its judgment, it is not any 
'longer right for a Christian to doubt of the fact, or to 
'call it in question 1 .' This general judgment is then 
enforced by a special affirmation of the authenticity of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews as St Paul's, 2 Peter, and the 
Apocalypse, with references to the Councils of Laodicea, 
Carthage, and the Apocryphal Council at Home under 
Gelasius. 

Erasmus was the real leader both of the literary and 
critical schools of the Eeformation. His influence extend- 
ed both to his own Church and to the Protestant Churches 
of Germany and Switzerland; and opinions which he in- 
timated with hesitation and doubt found elsewhere a bold 
expression. To take one example from Romanist scholars, 
Cardinal Caietan (Jacob [Thomas] de Yio), the adversary 
of Luther at Augsburg in 1^18, gives an unhesitating cardinal 
adhesion to the Hebrew Canon in his Commentary on all 1469— 1 534 .\.d. 
the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which I5 , 2 a.d. 
was dedicated to Clement YIL ' The whole Latin Church,' p nt. xax. 



1 Du Plessis, Collect. Jud. de 
Hov. error, i Jud. iv. ; n. 53 ff. 
Propositio 1. Non statim dubius 
est in fide, qui de auctore libri dubi- 
tat. 

Censura. Haec propositio teme- 
rarie et erronee asseritur, loquendo 
ut scriptor loquitur de dubio auto- 
rum sanctorum librorum novi Tes- 
tamenti ab Ecclesia sub nomine 
talium autorum receptorum, cujus- 
modi sunt autores quatuor librorum 
Kvangeliorum, septem Epistolarum 
Canonicarum, quatuordecim episto- 
lorum Pauli, actuum Apostolorum 
et Apocalypsis: nam cum Deus 



viros illos sanctos organa sua con- 
stituent in editionc talium librorum, 
honori eorum detrahit quisquis ab 
hujusmodi libris nomina eorum au- 
fert, vel in dubium vert it, necDon 
et a frequenti abducit et fructuosa 
eorum lectione. Prasterea quamvis 
de autoribus aliquorum hujusmodi 
librorum a nonnullis olim dubitatum 
sit, nihilominus postquam Ecclesia 
sub nomine talium autorum suo usu 
universali illos recepit ct sua probavit 
definitions, jam non fas est Christi- 
ana dubitare aut in dubium revo- 
care. 



424 The Sixteenth Century. [part 

chap. in. he says, 'owes very much to St Jerome... on account of 
'his separation of the Canonical from the uncanonical 
' books.' 
jSofeo/^e 1 And the authority of Jerome had equal weight with 
vimL estar him in dealing with the Antilegomena of the New Tes- 
tament. Thus in the preface to his Commentary on the 
Epistle to the Hebrews he writes : ' Since we have received 

* Jerome as our rule that we may not err in the separation 
■ of the Canonical books (for those which he delivered as 
' Canonical we hold Canonical, and those which he separated 
' from the Canonical books we hold without the Canon) ; 
' therefore as the author of this Epistle is doubtful in the 
' opinion of Jerome, the Epistle also is rendered doubtful, 
' since unless it is Paul's it is not clear that it is Canonical. 
' Whence it comes to pass that if anything arise doubtful 

* in faith it cannot be determined from the sole authority 
' of this Epistle. See how great mischief an anonymous 
' book creates.' In like manner he quotes Jerome for the 
doubts entertained as to the authority of St James, 2 Peter, 
2 and 3 John, and St Jude. Of the three last he expressly 
says that 'they are of less authority than those which are 
' certainly Holy Scripture.' On 2 Peter akme he decides 
favourably, for the argument from style is, he maintains, 
very fallacious 1 . The Apocalypse he dismisses in a sentence. 
' 1 confess that I cannot interpret the Apocalypse according 
'to the literal sense. Let him interpret it to whom God 
' has given the power 2 .' 

1 Infirmum itaque argumentum et est finis Commentariorum nos- 
assumitur : cum unum atque eun- trorum super Novum Testamentum. 
'dem hominem diverso stylo quando- Caietae die 1 7 Augusti. Anno 
que scribere experientia testetur. Domini m.d.xxix. setatis autem pro- 
Begistrum Gregorii tantum dissonat prise sexagesimo primo. ^ Apocalyp- 
ab aliis scrip tis a Gregorio, ut si ex sim enim fateor me nescire exponere 
stylo arguendum esset negaretur juxta sensum literalem: exponat cui 
Gregorii (Prcef. ad 2 Petr.). Deus concesserit {Opera, T. v. p. 

2 Et sic finitur Epistola Judse: 401, ed. 1639). 



in.] The Council of Trent 425 

These statements of Cardinal Caietan passed un- chap. hi. 
challenged during his lifetime, but shortly after his death 
they were assailed by Catharinus, a vehement contro- catharsis. 
versialist whose life was spent in disputes. Yet Catharinus 
abandoned the argument from history, and simply took 
refuge in the decrees of Popes Innocent, Gelasius, and 
Eugenius, as decisive upon the extent of the Canon 1 . This 
simple mode of determining the question was unhappily 
adopted, and probably in part through his influence, at 
the Council of Trent, in w T hich he played an important The council of 
part. The Council held its first Session on Dec. 13th, 
1545. In the third session (Feb. 4th, 1546) the Nicene 
Creed was recited and ratified. The subject of Holy 
Scripture and Tradition was then brought forward for pre- 
liminary discussion on Feb. 12th. Four articles taken 
from the writings of Luther were proposed for consideration 
or rather for condemnation. Of these the first affirmed 
that Scripture only (without tradition) was the single and 
complete source of doctrine ; the second that the Hebrew 
Canon of the Old Testament and the acknowledged books 
of the New Testament ought alone to be admitted as 
authoritative. These dogmas were discussed by about 
thirty divines in four meetings. On the first point there 
was a general agreement. It was allowed that tradition 
was a co-ordinate source of doctrine with Scripture. On 
the second there was a great variety of opinion. Some Varieties & 
proposed to follow the judgment of Cardinal Caietan and 
distinguish two classes of books, as, it was argued, had 
been the intention of Augustine. Others wished to draw 
the line of distinction yet more exactly, and form three 
classes, (1) the Acknowledged Books, (2) the Disputed 
Books of the New Testament, as having been afterwards 

1 Annot. in Coram. Caictani, Lib. 1. (1542). 



426 The Sixteenth Century. [part 

chap. in. generally received, (3) the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. 
A third party wished to give a bare list, as that of Car- 
thage, without any further definition of the authority of 
the books included in it, so as to leave the subject yet 
open. A fourth party, influenced by a false interpretation 
of the earlier papal decrees, and necessarily ignorant of 
the grave doubts which affect their authenticity, urged the 
ratification of all the books of the enlarged Canon as equally 
of Divine authority. The first view was afterwards merged 
in the second, and on March 8 three minutes w r ere drawn 
up embodying the three remaining opinions. These were 
considered privately, and on the 15th the third was carried 

Decree on the by a majority of voices. The decree in which it was 

Canon of j j j 

.scripture. finally expressed was published on the 8th of April, and 
for the first time the question of the contents of the Bible 
was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an 
Anathema. ' The holy oecumenical and general Council of 
'Trent/ so the decree runs, '... following the examples 
'of the orthodox Fathers receives and venerates all the 
i books of the Old and New Testaments. . .and also traditions 
'pertaining to faith and conduct... wdth an equal feeling of 
'devotion and reverence/ Then follows the list of the 
books of the Old and New Testaments, including Tobit, 
Judith, Wisdom, JEcclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, in the 
same order as the decree of Eugenius IV. and the decree 
proceeds, ' If however anyone does not receive the entire 
' books with all their parts as they are accustomed to be 
' read in the Catholic Church and in the old Latin Vulgate 
'edition {i.e. Jerome's with the additions) as sacred aud 
'Canonical, and knowingly and wittingly despises the 
' aforesaid traditions, let him be Anathema/ 

The decree un. . This fatal decree, in which the Council, harassed by 

precede, tited. , „ ' J 

the tear of lay critics and ' grammarians/ gave a new 
aspect to the whole question of the Canon, was ratified by 



in.] Sixties Senensis. 427 

fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one chap. hi. 
German, not one scholar distinguished for historical 
learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the 
examination of a subject in which the truth could only be 
determined by the voice of antiquity. How completely 
the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the 
original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how 
far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and ac- 
knowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance . 
with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely 
unprecedented was the conversion of an ecclesiastical usage 
into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence 
which has been already adduced. If historical criticism 
had made as much advance as grammatical criticism at 
the time when the decree was enacted, no anathema at 
least would have been directed against differences of 
opinion on books or parts of books; for on one point at . 
least scholarship gained the day. It was decided after 
much discussion that no anathema should be added to the 
second part of the decree which affirmed the authority of 
the Latin Vulgate. 

It is unnecessary to continue the history of the Canon 
in the Romish Church. The attempts which have been 
made from time to time by Romanist Scholars to claim 
some freedom of opinion on the subject can find no excuse 
in the terms of the decree. One judgment only will be 
added, which has considerable interest from the circum- 
stances under which it was pronounced. 

The Bibliotheca Sancta of the Dominican Sixtus The statement 
Senensis, which was dedicated to Pius Y. as the ' chief nbnms. 
* author of the Index of prohibited books and the purifier 1:> ° 
' of Christian literature,' may be taken as the authorized 
expression of the general views which prevailed in the 
Council. Sixtus divides the books of the Bible into two 



428 The Sixteenth Century. [part 

chap. in. classes. The books of the first class (Protocanonical) are 
those of which there has never been any doubt in the 
Church, or to use the term which has been already ex- 
plained the 'acknowledged' books of the Old and New 
Testaments except Esther. The books of the second 
class — 'called Ecclesiastical in former times but now 
' Deuterocanonical' — are those which were not generally 
known till a late period, ' as in the Old Testament Esther, 
' Tobit, Judith, and Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, the 
' Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, the Additions to 
'Daniel, % Maccabees. And in the New Testament in 
' like manner, Mark xvi. 9 — 20 ; Luke xxii. 43, 44 ; John 
'vii. 53 — viii. 11, the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, 1 
' Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Apocalypse, and other books 
' of the same kind (?), which formerly the ancient Fathers 
' of the Church held as Apocryphal and not Canonical, and 
' at first permitted to be read only before catechumens (as 
'Athanasius witnesses) .. ,then (as Ruffinus writes) allowed 
'to be read before all the faithful, not for the confirmation 
' of doctrines, but merely for the instruction of the people: 
'and... at last willed that they should be adopted among 
'the Scriptures of irrefragable authority../ 

The concessions and claims made in * this passage 
are equally significant. The determination of the books 
which come within the limits of the Bible is taken out of 
the domain of historical criticism. It is admitted that for 
nearly four centuries the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testa- 
ment was alone received. It is affirmed that the Church 
has power not only to fix the extent of the Canon, but also 
to settle questions of text. The field of Biblical study is 
definitely closed against all free research. 

§2. The Saxon School of Reformers. 
lutheb. Meanwhile a spirit was awakened in Germany which 



in.] Luther. 429 

for a time cast a vivid if a partial light upon the Bible as chap. in. 
the depository of the Divine teaching transmitted to the 
Church. The discovery of a Latin Bible, we are told, 
turned the thoughts of Luther into a new channel. And 
Luther on his side found in the Bible something which 
had long been hidden from the world, not as to its doctrine 
onlv, but as to its general relation to God and men. The 
study of the Bible was a life-long passion with him. 'Were 
1 1 but a great poet,' he said, ' I would write a magnificent 
'poero. on the utility and efficacy of the Divine word.' His 
judgments on the different Books are given in detail in 
his Prefaces. These are so full of life, and so characteristic 
of the man, that they can never lose their interest; and as 
a whole they form an important chapter in the history of 
the Bible. His comments on the Apocrypha have singular 
vigour and personal appreciation of the value of the 
several books 1 ; nor does he shew less freedom and boldness 
in dealing with the Antilegomena of the New Testament. 

For him there is a Gospel within the Gospel, a New Difference in 
Testament within the New Testament. After giving a tament! 
general summary of the principles of the Christian life, he 
thus concludes the preface to his first edition of the trans- 
lation 2 . 'From all this you can rightly judge between all 
'the books, and distinguish which are the best. For St 
'Johns Gospel, and St Paul's Epistles, especially that to 
'the Romans, and St Peter s first Epistle, are the true 
' marrow and kernel of all the books ; which properly also 
' might be the first, and each Christian should be coun- 
'selled to read them first and most, and make them as 
'common by daily reading as his daily bread... Briefly St 
'Johns Gospel and his first Epistle, St Paul's Epistles, 
'especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, 

1 Comp. Bible in the Church, pp. 2 JVerl-e, ed. Walch, xiv. io+ : 

260 ff. • This is left out in the later editions. 



430 The Sixteenth Century. [part 

chap. in. 'and St Peter s first Epistle : these' — the words are empha- 
sized in the original — ' are the books which shew thee Christ, 
' and teach all which it is needful and blessed for thee to 
' know, even if you never see or hear any other book, or any 
' other doctrine. Therefore is the Epistle of St James a 
'right strawy Epistle compared with them, for it has no 
' character of the Gospel in it.' 
He p i acP d Agreeably to this general statement Luther placed 

auvidedbooks the Epistle to the Hebreivs, James, Jude, and the Apoca- 
i y themselves. iyp Se ^ a ^ ^ e en( j f n i s translation, after the other books of 

the New Testament, which he called 'the true and cer- 
tain Capital-books of the New Testament 1 ; for these 
'four have been regarded in former times in a different 
' light/ Of the Epistle to the Hebrews he says that it 

Heb. ii. 3 . was certainly by a disciple of the Apostles, and not by an 
Apostle. It was, he thinks, ' put together out of many 

Heb. vi. 1. c pieces.' The writer ' does not lay the foundation of faith, 
'but yet he builds upon it gold, silver, precious stones. 
'Therefore even if we find perhaps wood, straw, or haj^, 
' mingled with it, that shall not prevent us from receiving 
' such instruction with all honour ; though we do not place 
'it absolutely on the same footing as the Apostolic 
'Epistles.' 

The Epistle of ' I admire,' he says, ' the Epistle of St James, though 
dmes. ,.^ ^ as rejected by the ancients, and still hold it as good, 
' for this reason that it lays down no teaching of man, and 
'presses home the law of God 2 . Yet to express my own 
' opinion, without prejudice to any one, I do not hold it to 
'be the writing of any Apostle, for these reasons: (i) It 
'contradicts St Paul and all other Scripture in giving 
'righteousness to works... (2) It teaches Christian people, 
. ' and yet doe's not once notice the Passion, the Resurrec- 
'tion, the Spirit of Christ. The writer names Christ a 

1 lb. p. 147. 2 lb. p. 148. 



in.] Luther, 431 

' few times ; but he teaches nothing of him, but speaks of chap, ul 

1 general faith in God. While it is the duty of a true Apostle 

'to preach Christ's Sufferings and Resurrection 1 . ..And 

'therein all true holy books agree, that they preach and 

' urge Christ. That too is the right touchstone whereby 

' to criticise all books, whether they urge Christ or not, 

'for all Scripture testifies of Christ... That which does Rom. m. 21. 

'not teach Christ is still not Apostolic, even if it were 

1 the teaching of St Peter or St Paul. Again that which 

' preaches Christ, that were Apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, 

' Pilate, and Herod, preached it 2 .' ' I cannot then place it 

'among the true Capital-books; but I will forbid no one 

' to place and elevate it as he pleases ; for there are many 

' good sayings in it 3 / 

The Epistle of St Jade is 'indisputably an extract or The Eputu tf 
'copy from the second Epistle of St Peter 4 ... Therefore, 
' though I applaud it, it is not an Epistle wdiich can claim 
' to be reckoned among the Capital-books, which ought to 
' lay the foundation of faith.' 

Of the Apocalypse he simply says (1534 A.D.) 5 that The Apoca- 
'no man ought to be hindered from holding it to be a 
'work of St John or otherwise, as he will... 6 .' Reckless 
interpretations had brought it into dishonour. And 
though it was yet a 'dumb prophecy/ he shews that the true 
Christian can use it for consolation and warning. ' Briefly, 
■ our holiness is in heaven where Christ is, and not in the 



1 76. p. 149. Epistle. 

2 lb. p. 150. 5 Twelve years before he had spo- 

3 The edition of 1522 had after ken far more disparagingly of the 
these words the following sentence: book. 'For several reasons I hold 
'One man is no man in worldly 'it to be neither Apostolic nor Pro- 
' things ; how then should this single ' phetic. . .My spirit cannot acquiesce 
1 writer all alone hold good against 'in the book:... I abide by the books 
' Paul and all other Scripture V ' which present Christ clear and pure 

4 He does not notice the doubts 'to me.' 
raised as to the authority of this G lb. p. 152* 



432 The Sixteenth Century. [part 

chap. in. ' world before our eyes, as some paltry ware in the market. 
' Therefore let offence, factions, heresy and wickedness, be 
1 and do what they may ; if only the Word of the Gospel 
' remains pure with us, and we hold it dear and precious, 
f we need not doubt that Christ is near and with us, even 
' if matters go hardest ; as we see in this Book that 
' through and above all plagues, beasts, evil angels, Christ 
'is still near and with His saints, and at last overthrows 
' them/ 

The freshness and power of Luther's judgments on 
the Bible, the living sense of fellowship with the spirit 
which animates them, the bold independence and self- 
assertion w T hich separate them from all simply critical con- 
clusions, combined to limit their practical acceptance to 
individuals. Such judgments rest on no definite external 
evidence. They cannot be justified by the ordinary rule 
and measure of criticism or dogma. No Church could 
rest on a theory which makes private feeling the supreme 
authority as to doctrine and the source of doctrine. As a 
natural consequence the later Lutherans abandoned the 
teaching of their great master on the written Word. For 
a time the ' disputed' books of the New Testament (Anti- 
legomena) were distinguished from the remainder ; but in 
the early part of the seventeenth century this difference 
was looked upon as wholly belonging to the past, and 
towards its close the very letter of the printed text of 
Scripture was treated by great Lutheran Divines as pos- 
sessing an inherent and inalienable sanctity beyond the 
reach of historical discussion. Yet the Lutheran Church 
has no recognized definition of Canonicity, and no express 
list of the Sacred Books. The nearest approach to this is 
. in the Lutheran Bible, in which the Apocrypha are placed 
by themselves and separated distinctly from 'the Holy 
'Scripture.' But on the other hand four of the Antilego- 



in.] Karlstadt. 433 

mena of the New Testament are in like manner removed chap, iil 
from their places in the Latin Bible and placed as a kind 
of Appendix, though without any special notice. And the 
detailed judgments which Luther delivered are not more 
favourable to one class than to the other. To a certain 
extent therefore the question was left open ; and usage 
alone has determined finally the subordinate position of 
the Apocrypha to the Old Testament, and elevated the 
Antilegomena of the New Testament to an equality with 
the remaining books. 

One attempt however was made to investigate inde- karlstadt. 
pendently the extent of the ' Canon and the principles on 
which it was formed. Among the early friends of Luther 
was Andrew Bodenstein of Karlstadt, who is common- 
ly known by the name of his native town, Archdeacon 
of Wittenberg. As the Reformation advanced, Luther 
and Karlstadt were separated by theological differences, 
and after long sufferings Karlstadt found an honourable 
retreat in Switzerland. By Bullinger's recommendation 
he was made professor of theology at Basle and died there 
in 1 541. While he w r as still working with Luther, in 
1520 he published a treatise On the Canonical Scriptures, 
which exhibits a remarkable sense of the real bearings 
and principles of an investigation into the constitution of 
the Bible. The Book was in advance of the age and 
appears to have produced no effect at the time. It con- 
sists of five parts, (1) On the majesty of Scripture. (2) 
On the force and strength of Scripture. (3) On the num- 
ber and order of the Sacred books. (4) On the Catalogues 
of Jerome and Augustine. (5) A general classification of 
Scripture. It is with the last division alone that we are ms da**; fa- 
llow concerned. In this Karlstadt divides all the books ture.°' 
of Scripture into three classes of different dignity, almost 
as Hugo of St Victor had done before him. The first 
C. FF 



434 The Sixteenth Century. [part 

chap. in. class contains only the Pentateuch and the four Gospels, 
' the clearest luminaries of the whole Divine truth/ The 
second class includes the Prophets according to the 
Hebrew reckoning, and the acknowledged Epistles of the 
New Testament (Paul 13, Peter 1, John 1). The third 
class contains the Hagiographa of the Hebrew Canon and 
the seven disputed books of the New Testament 1 . 

This short summary of Karlstadt's results can give no 
idea of the breadth and subtlety of many of his remarks. 
The whole evidence was not before him and consequently 
he erred in his conclusions ; but even as it is, his treatise 
is not without use in the present day. It was the first 
clear assertion of the independent supremacy of Holy 
Scripture, and so far the first enunciation of the fun- 
damental principle of the Reformation. Yet at the same 
time Karlstadt recognized the historic function of the 
Church in collecting and ratifying the sacred books. 

§9*- 'Why,' he asks, in reference to Luther's objections to the 

Epistle of St James, 'if you allow the Jews to stamp books 
' with authority by receiving them, do you refuse to grant 
'as much power to the Churches of Christ, since the 
t Church is not less than the Synagogue?' And though he 
placed the different books of the Bible in different ranks, 
yet he drew a broad line between all of them and the 

§37. traditions or decrees of Christian teachers. 'You see,' he 

writes, 'kind reader, how great is the authority of the 
' Holy Scriptures. Whether willingly or unwillingly, you 
' will allow the extent of their authority, whose slightest 
' sign all other arts and sciences, as far as they affect the 
' moulding of life, revere, regard, dread, adore. Therefore 
' 5 rightly the laws of men, the canons of Popes, the customs 

1 The Acts is entirely omitted. Scripturis, § 136. Yet again in §S 

Probably the book was looked upon 65 ff. he appears to pass over the 

by Karlstadt as an Appendix to St book purposely. 
Luke's Gospel: see de Canonicis 



III.] Zwingli. 435 

'of the people, yield to [the Bible] as their mistress, and chap. hi. 
'minister to it' 'We judge of the opinions of all and §5. 
■ each from the Sacred Scriptures/ he elsewhere says, ' and 
'therefore we pronounce [the Bible] to be the queen and 
' mistress of all* and the judge who judges all things while 
'she herself is judged by none../ 'The Divine Law, single § 6 - 
'and alone, is placed beyond all suspicion of error, and 
'draws all other laws within its dominion, or utterly 
'destroys them if they strive against it.' 



§ 3. The Swiss School of Reformers. 

Karlstadt forms a link between the Saxon and Swiss 
Reformers. While Luther was battling for the one great 
principle of faith, a more comprehensive movement was 
begun in Switzerland. Zwingli the foremost of its Zwmou 
champions was only a few weeks younger than Luther, I484 "" I5JI AI> * 
and he had not yet heard Luther's name, as he writes, 
when he began to preach the Gospel. But Zwingli was 
not contented with the compromise which Luther was 
willing to make with all that was hallowed by usage, 
provided it was not positively superstitious. He aimed at 
forming a strictly logical system based on Scripture only, 
irrespective of tradition or custom. In this respect he 
carried out, in intention at least, the principles which 
Karlstadt had maintained; and the method which he 
followed became characteristic of the Swiss Churches. 
The Saxon reformation was in essence conservative: the 
Swiss reformation was in essence rationalistic. 

Zwingli himself does not appear to have discussed the 
Canon of Scripture. In his notes on the Epistle to the 
Hebreivs and St James he takes no account of the doubts 
which had been raised as to their authority. Of the 
Apocalypse alone he declares that he 'takes no account 

F F Z 



438 The Sixteenth Century. [part 

chap. in. * f i t? for it is not a book of the Bible 1 / While Zwingli 
was labouring to spread his doctrines at Zurich, his friend 
a wus. MPA " CEcolampadius carried on the same work at Basle. In a 
1482-1531 A.r. letter to the Waldenses CEcolampadius explains the views 
of his party on the Canon. ' In the New Testament we 
'receive four Gospels, with the Acts of the Ap&stles, and 
'fourteen Epistles of St Paul, and seven Catholic Epistles, 
'together with the Apocalypse ; although we do not com- 
'pare the Apocalypse, the Epistles of James and Jade, 
'and i Peter and 2 and 3 John with the rest 2 .' 

This judgment of CEcolampadius may be taken as a 
fair representation of the feeling in the German Churches 
of Switzerland. But even before his death, which hap- 
pened in the same year as that of Zwingli, Farel had 
begun that movement in the French cantons which under 
the direction of Calvin influenced more or less the theology 
of all Western Europe. 
CALns'ajudg- With regard to the Antilegomena of the New Testa- 

mentonthe . Q i p • i i ni iii 

Antilegomena ment Calvm expresses himsell with hardly less boldness 

of the New . 

Testament than Luther, though practically he followed common usage. 
He passes over 2 and 3 John and the Apocalypse in his 
Commentary without notice, and writes of 1 John as 

rfo Epistle to simply 'the Epistle of John/ 'I embrace/ he says, '[the 
' Epistle to the Hebrews] without doubt among the Apo- 
' stolic Epistles ; nor do I doubt but that it was through 
' a device of Satan that some have questioned its authority. . . 
' Wherefore let us not allow the Church of God and our- 
' selves to be bereft of so great a blessing; but let us 
' vindicate for ourselves the possession of it with firmness. 
'We need however feel little anxiety as to who wrote it... 
''I cannot myself be brought to believe that Paul was the 
'author... The method of instruction and style sufficiently 

1 Werlce y n. 1, p. 169 (ed. Schuler) : lisch buch ist... 
Us Apocalypsi nemend wir kein 2 Fpistola, Lib. I. p. 3 c, ed. 

kimdschaft an, dann es nit ein bib- 1548. 



III.] Calvin. 437 

'shew that the writer was not Paul, and he professes him- chap, hi 
c self to be one of the disciples of the Apostles, which is Heb ' "' 3 
'wholly alien from Paul's custom... ' 

• The fact that Eusebius says that doubts were formerly 2 p eter. 
1 entertained on it [2 Peter] ought not to deter us from 
'reading it... I am more moved by the statement of 
'Jerome that some, led by the difference of style, did not 
' think Peter the author of it. For although some likeness * 
' with his style can be observed, yet I confess that there is 
'an obvious difference which indicates a different writer. 
'There are also other plausible conjectures from which we 
'may gather that it was the work of some other than 
'Peter... But if it is received as Canonical, we must confess 
! that Peter was its author, since not only is it inscribed 
' with his name, but the writer himself witnesses that he 
'lived with Christ... I therefore' lay down that if the 
'Epistle be deemed worthy of credit it proceeded from 
' Peter, not that he wrote it himself, but that some one of 
'his disciples at his command included in it w^hat the 
'necessity of the times required... Certainly, since the 
'majesty of the Spirit of Christ exhibits itself in every 
'part of the Epistle, I feel a scruple at rejecting it wholly, 
'however much I fail to recognize in it the genuine 
' lan^uaofe of Peter. 5 

Of the Epistle of St James he speaks more confidently, st James. 
' It is known,' he writes, c from the evidence of Jerome and 
' Eusebius, that this Epistle was not received formerly 
' without a struggle by many churches. There are even at 
'the present day some who do not think it worthy of 
'authority. Still I willingly embrace it without doubt, 
'because I see no sufficiently good reason for rejecting it... 
' Certainly it cannot be required of all to treat of the same 
' topic' And of theEpistle of St Jude he speaks in similar st Jude. 
terms : ' Although different conflicting opinions were 



438 The Sixteenth Century, [part 

chap. in. ' entertained about this Epistle also among the ancients ; 
' still because it is useful for reading, and does not contain 
' anything foreign to the purity of Apostolic doctrine, while 
' already in former times it gained authority with the best 
' writers, I willingly add it to the others.' 

In each case a personal and not a critical or historical 
test was applied. The result could not be long doubtful. 
The edition of the New Testament which was dedicated 

bbza. by Beza to Queen Elizabeth in the year of Calvin's death, 

exhibits very clearly the influence which usage exercised 
in the suppression of the early doubts on the Antilegomena. 

the Hebrews. In his preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews Beza examines 
and meets the arguments which had been brought against 
the belief in its Pauline authorship, and then concludes : 
' Let us however allow liberty of judgment on this point, 
'provided only we all agree in this, that this Epistle was 
'truly dictated by the Holy Spirit... while it is written in 
1 so excellent and so exact a method, that (unless we can 
' suppose Apollos wrote it, whose learning and eloquence 
' combined with the greatest piety are highly praised in 
' the Acts) scarcely any one except St Paul could have been 
' the writer.' He afterwards notices generally the doubts 

^KpTsUes! 10 en tertained as to James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, but 

TAeApoca- sets them aside without discussion. His preface to the 
bp^e. . ... 

Apocalypse is far more elaborate. In this he discusses m 

some detail the objections raised by Erasmus to its Apo- 
stolic origin, and pronounces them in general to be seve- 
rally weak and futile. ' This being the case,' he argues, 
'although I do not think that we ought to dispute too 
' obstinately as to the name of the writer, still I should be 
*' inclined to assign the book to John the Apostle rather 
'than to any one else... If however it were allowed to 
'form a conjecture from the style, I should assign it to no 
' one rather than Mark, who also is himself called John. 



in.] The Reformed Confessions. 439 

'The character of this book being similar to and almost chap.*ii 

' identical with that of the Gospel of Mark, not only in 

'words but also in general phraseology... Finally, we are 

' led to believe that the Holy Spirit was pleased to gather 

c into this most precious book those predictions of the ear- 

'lier Prophets which remained to be fulfilled after the 

1 coming of Christ, and also added some particulars, as far 

' as He knew that it concerned us to be acquainted with . 

' them/ 

From what has been said it will appear that the sub- 
ject of the Canon was not one which excited any marked 
interest among the chief Swiss reformers. Custom fixed 
the details of their judgment, and by a gradual process 
the Bible was more and more removed (as was formally 
the case in the Romish Church) from the region of 
history. The idea of Inspiration -was substituted for that 
of Canonicity. The recognition of variety and advance in 
the records of Revelation w 7 as virtually forbidden. The 
test of authority was placed in individual sentiment, and 
not in the common witness of the congregation. * 

The progress of thought thus indicated is seen yet Judgments on 

• . Scripture in 

more clearly in the public acts of the Reformed Calvinis- the reformed 

J L . 'ii Confession*. 

tic Churches. In these also there is a rapid advance 
from a general assertion of the claims of Holy Scripture 
to an exact and rigid definition of the character and con- 
tents of the Bible. No notice is taken of the limits of the 
Canon in the Confessions of Faith issued by Zwingli. In 152:— 1530 *.» 
the first Confession of Faith at Basle (1534), which is said 
to have been moulded on the Confession of GEcolampadius, ^ 

a general reference is made to 'Holy Biblical Scripture/ 
to which every opinion is submitted 1 . In the first Hel- 
vetic Confession (1,536) Canonical Scripture, that is 'the 
' Word of God, given by the Holy Spirit, and set forth by 

1 Niemeyer, Coll. Confess, p. 104. 



440 The Sixteenth Century. [part 

chap. in. < the Prophets and Apostles/ is declared to be ' the oldest 
' and most perfect philosophy, which alone contains com- 
' pletely all piety and all the rule of life 1 / The same gene- 
ral description is found in the Genevan Catechism, pub- 
lished by Calvin in 1545 2 , and in the later Helvetic Confes- 
sion of 1566 3 . The Belgian Confession (1561 — 63), which 
was influenced in some degree by the English Articles^ 
treats of the Canon at some length. ' We embrace/ it is 
said, l Holy Scripture in those two volumes of the Old and 
'New Testament, which are called the Canonical Books, 
'about which there is no controversy 4 .' Then follows a list 
of the Hebrew Canon and of the books of the New Testa- 
ment, as we receive them. l These books alone/ the next 
article continues, 'we receive as sacred and Canonical, on 
' which our faith can rest, by which it can be confirmed and 
' established. And we believe all those things which are 
'contained in them, and that not so much because the 
'Church receives and approves them as Canonical, as be- 
' cause the Holy Spirit witnesses to our consciences that 
' they emanated from God ; and on this account also that 
'they themselves sufficiently witness to and of themselves 
'approve this their proper authority...' 'Moreover we 
' lay down a difference between these sacred books and 
' those which men call Apocryphal, inasmuch as the Church 
' can read the Apocryphal books, and take out proof from 
' them so far as they agree with the Canonical books ; but 
' their authority and certainty is by no means such that any 
' dogma of Christian faith or religion can certainly be esta- 

* 'blishedfrom their testimony... And therefore with these 

' divine Scriptures and this truth of God no other human 
'•writings however holy, no custom, nor multitude, nor an- 
' tiquity, nor prescription of time, nor succession of persons, 

1 Niemeyer, pp. 105, 115. 4 Art. 3— 7. pp. 361 — 3. Altered 

2 lb. p. 159. afterwards to * there never was any 

3 lb. p. 467. ' controversy.' 



ill.] The Westminster Confession. 441 

'nor any councils, no decrees or statutes of men in fine, are chap hi 
'to be compared, inasmuch as the truth of God excels all 
1 things/ Statements to the same general effect, with some 
verbal agreements, are found in the Articles of the French 
reformed Church of 1561 1 ; but there is this significant dif- 
ference, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is placed in the 
French catalogue apart from the Epistles of St Paul. The The Westmin- 
Westminster Assembly, which first met in 1643, followed sion. 
the same method in dealing with Scripture, and the words 
of their Confession may be taken as an exact and mature 
expression of the feelings of the Calvinistic churches on 
the subject of the Bible. 

' Art.'i. ...It pleased the Lord at sundry times and in ra« Humble 
'divers manners to reveal Himself and to declare His will Assembly of 
'unto His Church; and... to commit the same wholly unto iff.ed.rfi 
' writing ; which maketh the Holy Scripture to be mc 
'necessary: those former ways of God's revealing His will 
' unto His people being now ceased. 

' ii. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word 
' of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old 
' and Xew Testament, which are these : 

'Of the Old Testament, Genesis.., Malachi. 

'Of the New Testament, The Gospel according to Mat 1 
' thew...The Revelation of John. 

' All which are given by Inspiration of God to be the 
' rule of faith and life. 

' iii. The Books commonly called Apocrypha, not being 
' of Divine Inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scrip- 
'ture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of 
' God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of 
'than other human writings, 

' iv. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which 
' it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon 

1 Xiemeyer, p. 311. 



442 The Sixteenth Century, [part 

chap. in. ' the testimony of any man or Church; but wholly upon 
'God (who is truth itself) the Author thereof; and there- 
■ fore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. 

- v. We may be moved and induced by the testimony 
' of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy 
'Scripture... yet notwithstanding our full persuasion and 
'assurance of the infallible truth and Divine authority 
4 thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing 

* witness by and with the Word in our hearts/ 

The controversies on the text of the Bible, w^hich form 
a painful episode in the ecclesiastical annals of the seven- 
teenth century, added yet severer precision to definitions 
like these, which seem sufficiently stringent. The most 
exact and rigid declaration of the Inspiration of the Bible 
which is found in any public Confession of Faith was drawn 
Swiss Declare- U p [ n the Swiss Declaration of 167^, which forms a charac- 

tion of 1675. r . . ... . 

teristic close to this division of our history 1 . 'Almighty 
' God,' thus the articles commence, i not only provided that 
' His Word, which is a power to every one who believes, 
' should be committed to writing through Moses, the Pro- 
' phets, and Apostles, but also has watched over it with a 
1 fatherly care up to the present time, and guarded lest it 
' might be corrupted by the craft of Satan or any fraud of 
'man...' Thus the 'Hebrew volume of the Old Testa- 

* ment, which we have received from the tradition of the 
'Jewish Church, to which formerly the oracles of God 
1 were committed, and retain at the present day, both in 
'its consonants and in its vowels, — the points themselves, 
' or at least the force of the points, — and both in its sub- 
' stance and in its words is divinely inspired, so that 

• 'together with the volume of the New Testament it is 
' the single and uncorrupted Rule of our faith and life, by 
'whose standard, as by a touch-stone, all Versions which 

1 Niemeyer, p. 730. 



ill.] Grotius. 443 

'exist, whether Eastern or Western, must be tried, and chap. in. 
' wherever they vary be made conformable to it/ 

§ 4. The Arminian School. 

Yet such doctrines as these were not promulgated with- 
out opposition. Historical criticism was universally sub- 
ordinate to doctrinal controversy, but still at times it 
made itself felt. In this respect the influence of the Ar- 
minian School upon the study of Holy Scripture was too 
great to be neglected in any account of the history of the 
Canon. The principles which were embodied in their 
teaching belonged to the dawn of the Reformation, though 
they only found adequate expression at a later time. 
Grotius (de Groot) may be taken as their representative, grotius. 
and no one can have used his Annotations without feeling is83 ~~ l6<5AA 
that his power of interpreting Scripture, though practically 
marred by many faults, was yet in several respects far 
superior to that of his contemporaries. His Commentary 
includes notes on the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and 
the New Testament. On the Antilegomena of the New 
Testament he speaks in detail: 'It is most obvious,' he Praef.adHebr. 
says, ' that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by 
1 St Paul, from the difference in style between this Epistle 
'and the Epistles of St Paul;' and he then points out 
various reasons which lead him to attribute it to St Luke. 
'Those who have rejected the Epistle of James... had votumpro 
' reasons, but not good reasons, for they saw that it was 
' opposed to their views: This I remarked, that all might 
' see how perilous it is to recede from the general agree- 
' ment of the Church.' ' I believe,' he says, ' that the Prsf. ad 
'original title of 2 Peter was the Epistle of Simeon,' i. e. 2 
of the successor of James in the bishopric of Jerusalem; 
' and that the present Epistle was made up of two epistles 
' by this primitive bishop, of which the second begins at 



444 The Sixteenth Century. [part 

chap. in. c the third chapter.' ' Many of the ancients/ he writes, 

o . ( ]3 e jj eve( j that 2 and 3 John were not the w T orks of the 

'Apostle, with whom Eusebius and Jerome do not dis- 

6 agree; and there are weighty arguments in favour of that 

Prsef. ad Jud. ' opinion.' ' I am wholly led to believe that the Epistle of 
' Jude was the work of Judas a bishop of Jerusalem in the 
' time of Hadrian.' On the contrary, he maintains that 

Pr«f. ad Apoc. the Apocalypse is a genuine work of the Apostle. 'Those 
' early writers believed that it was a work of the Apostle 
' John, who justly claim our credence.' f I believe how- 
e ever that it was kept in the care of the Presbyter John, 
'a disciple of the Apostle, and that therefore it came to 
f pass that it was supposed by some to be his work.' 

§ 5. TJie English Church. 

The history of the Canon in England is clearly re- 
flected in the history of the. English translations of the 
Bible. The work which was begun by Alfric and WyclifFe 
was brought to a worthy completion in the reign of Henry 
VIII. and his successors ; and the various Bibles which 
were issued exhibit in details of classification and order 
the changes of feeling which arose with regard to the 
Apocrypha of the Old and the Antilegomena of the New 
Testament. 

tyndale's New The first edition of the New Testament which was 
printed in English was that of William Tyndale. This 
probably was executed at Worms in 1525; and in the 
arrangement of the books it follows the order of Luther's 
Bible. The Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, and the 
Apocalypse, are placed together at the end. The second 
Epistle of St Peter and 2 and 3 John on the other hand are 

on thedis- placed with 1 Peter and 1 John. In his Prologues to the 
several books Tyndale notices the same doubts which 
Luther noticed, except that he passes over the Apoca- 



Testament. 



puted books. 



in.] The English Articles. 445 

li/pse in silence, though he decides generally in favour of chap. hi. 
the authority of the disputed books. ' Whether [the Epistle 

1 to the Hebrews] were Paul's or no I say not, but permit it 
'to other men's judgments; neither think I it to be an 
'article of any man's faith, but that a man may doubt of 
'the author 1 .' But in spite of these doubts 'this Epistle 
' ought no more to be refused for a holy, godly, and catho- 
'lic, than the other authentic Scriptures 2 .' 'Though [the 
'Epistle of St James] were refused in old time, and denied 
' of many to be the Epistle of a very Apostle, and though 
'also it lay not the foundation of the faith of Christ... me- 
" ihinketh it ought of right to be taken for Holy Scripture 3 .' 
'As for the Epistle of Judas, though men have and yet do 
' doubt of the author... I see not but that it ought to have 
'the authority of Holy Scripture 4 .' In his Prologues to 

2 Peter and 2 and 3 John (like Luther) he does not refer to 
any doubts as to the Canonicity of the Epistles. 

The subsequent editions of the English Bible up to 
the Authorized Edition of 161 1 offer no points of special 
interest with regard to the history of the Canon of the 
Xew Testament 5 . In the Genevan Bible alone notice 1560 a.d. 
is taken in the preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews 
of the doubts as to whether St Paul wrote it (' as it is not 
'like'), but no reference is made to the doubts as to the 
authority of the other disputed books. 

Practically the English Canon of the New Testament The teaching 

-.-1-1 rrn i i • r l of the Article* 

was settled by usage. 1 he authoritative teaching 01 the of th* English 

1 • 11 Church. 

Church of England m the Articles is not removed beyond 
all question. In the Articles of 1552 it was affirmed that 

• Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salva- 

• tion,' but nothing was then said of the books included 

1 Doctrinal Treatises, &c. p. 521 4 lb. p. 53 r. 

(ed. Park. Soc). 5 The changes with regard to the 

- lb. p. 523. Apocrypha are given in the Bible in 

3 lb. p. 525. the Church, pp. 2S2 ff. 



446 The Sixteenth Century. [par* 

chap. in. under that title. In the Elizabethan Articles of 1562 and 
1 57 1 a definition was added: 'In the name of Holy Scrip- 
'ture we do understand those Canonical books of the Old 
' and New Testament of whose authority was never any 
' doubt in the Church/ Then follows a statement ' Of the 
' names and number of the Canonical books/ in which the 
books of the Old Testament are enumerated at length. 
A list of the Old Testament Apocrypha is given next, im- 
perfect in the Latin, but complete in the English ; and at 
the end it is said : ' all the books of the New Testament, 
'as they are commonly received, we do receive and account 
'them for Canonical;' but no list is given 1 . A strict in- 
terpretation of the language of the Article thus leaves a 
difference between Canonical books and such Canonical 
books as have never been doubted in the Church 2 . Nor 
is it a complete explanation of the omission of a catalogue 
that the Articles were framed with a special reference to 
the Church of Rome, with which the Church of England 
had no controversy as to the New Testament; for the 
catalogue of the New Testament books is given, not only 
in the French and Belgian Articles, which alone of the 
foreign Confessions contain any list of the books of Scrip- 
ture, but also in the Westminster Confession and in the 
Irish Articles 3 . 
ruovimovs But whatever may be the explanation of this ambi- 
1tilMifcT S \ uh guity, — even if we admit that the framers of our Articles 
were willing to allow a certain freedom of opinion on a 
question which was left undecided, not only by the Lu- 
theran, but by many Calvinistic Churches, — there can be 



1 Hard wick, Hist, of the Articles' 3 Some light may be perhaps 

A pp. iii. p. 275. The Latin text thrown upon this strange ambiguity, 

(1562) only notices the Apocryphal which, as far as I know, is not no- 

books, without distinguishing the ticed in any history of the Articles. 

Apocryphal additions to Lsther, 3 Confess. Fid. Cap. i. ; Niemeyer, 

l>aniel, and Jeremiah. 1L I ff.; Hardwick, ib. App. vi. 



in.] The English Reformers. 447 

no doubt as to the general reception of all the books of chap nr. 
the New Testament as they now stand by our chief Re- 
formers. Tyndale in his Prologues notices the doubts as t™i>alk. 
to the Apostolical authority of the Epistles of St Jude and 
St James and of the Epistle to the Hebrews; but he adds 
that ' he sees no reason why they should not be accounted 
1 parts of Holy Scripture 1 .' Bishop Jewel rebuts Staple- jewel. 
ton's charge that he rejected the Epistle of St James on 
the authority of Calvin 2 . Bullinger's JDecades contain a buuix;kr. 
list of all the books of the New Testament in the \ roll 
' of the Divine Scriptures 3 .' Whitaker affirms that our whitakkr. 
j Church receives * the same books of the New Testament 
'and those only, as were enumerated at the Council of 
* Trent;' though he notices the doubts of the Lutherans 
and of Caietan in particular as to the seven Antilego- 
mena 4 . Fulke again in his answer to Martin states that fclke. i 5 3> 
the Holy Scriptures according to the acknowledgment of 
the English Church are ' all and every one of equal credit 
1 and authority, as being all inspired of God 5 ...' But it is 
useless to multiply quotations, for I am not aware that the 
judgment of the English Church as expressed by her 
theologians has ever varied as to the Canonical authority 
of any of the books of the New Testament. If she left 
her sons at liberty to test the worth of their inheritance, 
they have learnt to value more highly what they have 
proved more fully. The same Apostolic books as gave life 
and strength to the early Churches quicken our own. 
And they are recognized in the same way, by familiar and 
reverent use, and not by any formal decree. 

1 He makes no preface to the 4 Whitaker, Disp. on Scripture, 
Apocalypse. c. xvi. p. 105 (ed. Park. Soc). 

2 Jewel, Defence of Apology, Pt. 9 Fulke, Defence of the Transla- 
II. ix. J. Hon of the Bible, p. 8 (ed. Park. 

3 Bullinger, Decades, 1. p. 54 (ed. Soc). 
Park. Soc). 



CONCLUSION. 



448 Conclusion. [part 



Conclusion. 

Little now remains to be added on a retrospect of the 
history of the Canon. That whole history is itself a strik- 
ing lesson in the character and conduct of the Providential 
government of the Church. The recognition of the Apo- 
stolic writings as authoritative and complete was partial 
and progressive, like the formulizing of doctrine, and the 
settling of ecclesiastical order. But each successive step 
was virtually implied in that which preceded; and the 
principle by which they were all directed was acknow- 
ledged from the first. 

Thus it is that it is impossible to point to any period 
as marking the date at which our present Canon was de- 
termined. When it first appears, it is presented not as a 
novelty but as an ancient tradition. Its limits were fixed 
in the earliest times by use rather than by criticism; and 
this use itself was based on immediate knowledge. 

For it is of the utmost importance to remember that 
the Canon was never referred in the first ages to the au- 
thority of Fathers or Councils. The appeal was made not 
to the judgment of men but to that of Churches, and of 
those particularly which were most nearly interested in 
the genuineness of separate writings. And thus it is found 
that while all the Canonical books are supported by the 
concurrent testimony of all, or at least of many Churches, 
no more than isolated opinions of private men can be 
brought forward in support of the authority of any other 
writings. For the New Testament Apocrypha can hold a 
place by the side of the Apostolic books only so long as 
our view is limited to a narrow range : a comprehensive 
survey of their general relations shews the real interval by 
which they are separated. 



in.] Conclusion. 419 

And this holds true even of those books which are ex- conciusiom. 
posed to the most serious doubts. The Canonieity of the 
second Epistle of St Peter, which on purely historical 
grounds cannot be pronounced certainly authentic, is yet 
supported by Evidence incomparably more weighty than 
can be alleged in favour of that of the Epistle of Barna- 
bas, or of the Shepherd of Hernias, the best attested of 
Apocryphal writings. Nor must it be forgotten that in the 
fourth century numerous sources of information were still 
open to which we can no longer have recourse. And how 
important these may have been for the history of the 
Canon can be rightly estimated by the results which have 
followed from some recent discoveries, which have tended 
without exception to remove specious difficulties and to 
confirm the traditional judgments of the Church. 

But though external evidence is the proper proof both 
of the authenticity and authority of the New Testament, it 
is supported by powerful internal testimony drawn from 
the relations of the books to one another and to the early 
developments of Christian doctrine. Subjective criticism 
when used as an independent guide is always uncertain, 
and often treacherous; but when it is confined to the in- 
terpretation and comparison of historic data, it confirms as 
well as illustrates. And no one perhaps can read the New 
Testament as a whole, even in the pursuit of some parti- 
cular investigation, without gaining a conviction of its 
unity not less real because it cannot be expressed or trans- 
ferred. But while this must be matter of personal expe- 
rience, the connexion of the Apostolic writings with the 
characteristic forms of early doctrine is clearer and more 
tangible. Something has been said already on this sub- 
ject, and it offers a wide field for future investigation. For 
the New Testament is not only a complete spring of Chris- 
tian truth ; it is also a perfect key to the history of the 
Christian Church. * 

C. GG 



450 Conclusion. [part iil 

chap, iil To the last however it will be impossible to close up 

every avenue of doubt, and the Canon, like all else that 
has a moral value, can be determined only with practical 
and not with demonstrative certainty. But to estimate 
the comparative value of this proof, let any one contrast 
the evidence on which we receive the writings of St Paul 
or St John with that which we regard as satisfactory in 
the case of the letters of Cicero or Pliny. The result is as 
striking as it is for the most part unnoticed. Yet the 
record of divine Revelation when committed to human 
care, is not, at least apparently, exempted from the acci- 
dents and caprices which affect the transmission of ordi- 
nary books. And if the evidence by which its authenticity 
is supported is more complete, more varied, more continu- 
ous, than can be brought forward for any other book, it 
is because it appeals with universal power to the con- 
science of mankind : because the Church which under the 
influence of the Spirit first recognized in it the law of its 
constitution has never failed to seek in it fresh guidance 
and strength. 



APPENDIX A. 

OX THE HISTORY OF THE WORD KANQX 1 . 

THE original meaning of kolvuv (connected with fljj Kainj, appendix 
Kawa, canna [canalis, channel], cane, cannon) is a straight a. TheClas- 
rod, as a ruler, or rarely the beam of a balance; and this with *!£wv!" 
the secondary notion either (r) of keeping anything straight, as *" Uera y ' 
the rods of a shield, or the rod (liciatorium) used in weaving; 
or (2) of testing straightness, as a carpenters ride, and even 
improperly a plumbline. 

From the sense of literal measurement naturally followed 2 \ ^etaph<h 

J acally. 

the metaphorical use of kolvwv (like regida, norma, ride) to 
express that which serves to measure or determine anything ; 
whether in Ethics, as the good man (Ar. Eth. Xic. in. 4, 5); 
or in Art, as the Doryphorus of Polycletus (o kcivojv); or in 
Language, as the ' Canons' of Grammar 2 . 

With a slight variation in meaning, great epochs which 
served as landmarks of history, were called KavoVes xpovi/cor 
and kclvuv was used for a summary account of the contents of 
a work — the rule, as it were, by which its composition was 
determined 3 . 

One instance of the metaphorical use of the word requires 
special notice. The Alexandrine grammarians spoke of the 
classic Greek authors, as a whole, as 6 kolvuv, the absolute 
standard of pure language, the perfect model of composition 4 . 

1 Credner has investigated the 3 Cf. Credner, p. 10. To this 
early meanings of the word at con- sense must be referred the Paschal 
siderable length, but I cannot ac- Canons of various authors, and the 
cept all his conclusions {Zv.r. Gesch. Euseoian Canons of the New Testa- 
<7. K. 3 — 68). ment. 

2 Eeferences for all these mean- 4 Eedepenning, Origcnes, 1. 12. 
ings are given in the Lexicons. 

GG3 



452 On the History of the word Kavcov. 

appendix By a common transition in the history of words, kolvmv as 

J ' . , that which measures was afterwards used for that which is 

3. Passively. 

so measured. Thus a certain space at Olympia was called 
kolvuv and in late Greek kclvwv (canon) was used for a fixed 
tax, as of corn 1 . So also in Music, a canon is a composition in 
which a given melody is the model on which all the parts are 
strictly formed. 
b. The Eccie- So ' far we have traced the common use of kolvwv and 

sia&tical use of . . 

the ivcrd. at first sight the application of the word to the collection of 
classic authors seems to offer a complete explanation of its use 
in relation to Holy Scripture; but the ecclesiastical history of 

1. in the the word lends no support to such an hypothesis. The word 
occurs in its literal sense in Judith xiii. 6 (LXX) for the rod 
at the head of a couch; and again in Job xxxviii. 5 (Aq.) for 
a measuring line (1£, cnrapTLov, LXX. lima, Vulg.) 2 

2 Tn the New J n the New Testament it is used in two passages of St 

Testament. - . r © 

Paul's Epistles. In one (Gal. vi. 16, ocrot rw kclvovl (regula, 

Yulg.) TovTio (TToixwovcri) the abstract idea of the Christian 

rule of faith is connected by the verb with the primary notion 

of an outward measure. In the second (2 Cor. x. 13—16, 

Kara to fxerpov rov kolvovos (regulce, Vulg.) Kara rov kolvovcl 77/xwv 

iv aXXorpto) kclvovl) the transition from an active to a passive 

sense is very clearly marked. 

3. inPatris- j n i a fc e r Christian writers the metaphorical use of kglvwv 

Uc writings : , l 

i. Generally: is very frequent, both in a general sense (Clem. K. ad Corinth. 

(a) As a 'Rule j ? q KO lv(i)V rrj<; vTTOTayfjs* C 7> o €VK\er)s koll crc/xvcs rrjs dyias 

sense. kX^Vco)? kcuw); and also in reference to a definite rule (id. c. 

41, o wpujLiivos rfjs XciTovpytas kolvwv 3 ). One use of the word 

however rose into peculiar prominence, and is of great im- 

(j3)77ieRuieof portance with regard to the history of Holy Scripture. He- 
Truth, whether r . >- v \r . +1 .• <■ 
gesippus (cl. pp. 179 sqq.), according to the narration 01 

, Eusebius, spoke of those who tried to corrupt the ' sound rule 

( (rov vytrj kcwovo) of the saving proclamation ; ' and whether the 

1 Cf. Forcellinus and Du Cange, and vS/jlos. Credner, ss. 1 1 f. 

s. v. Canon. a Credner (s. 15) thinks that the 

? The word is used by Philo in word even here describes an ideal 

connexion with irapd^y^Kfia, opos, standard. 



On the History of the word Kavoov. 



453 



words be exactly quoted or not, they are fully supported by APPBNDi^ 

the authority of subsequent writers 1 . The early fathers, from 

the time of Irenaeus, continually appeal to the Fade of 

Christian teaching, — variously modified in the different phrases 

the Rule of the Ghurch, the Bide of Truth, the Fade of Faith 2 , — 

in their controversy with heretics; and from the first, as it 

seems, it was regarded in a double form. At one time it is an 

abstract ideal standard, handed down to successive generations, Alstract, or 

the inner law, as it were, which regulated the growth and 

action of the Church, felt rather than expressed, realized 

rather than defined. At another time it is a concrete form, 

Concre'e 

a set Creed, embodying the great principles which characterized (the Creed. . 



1 In the Clementine Homilies the 
word Kavuv is of frequent occurrence. 
Thus the principle of a duality in 
nature and Revelation is described 
as 6 X670S rod TrpofinriKod kolvovos, 6 
kclvCov rrjs avfyyias {Horn. 11. 15, 18, 
33). In like manner mention is 
made of the ' Eule of the Church' 
and of the ' Eule of Truth ;' and it 
was by this Eule that apparent dis- 
crepancies of Scripture were to be 
reconciled, by this that the unity of 
the Jewish nation was preserved 
(Clem, ad Jac. 2, 19 ; Petr. ad Jac. 
3 ; Petr. ad Jac. 1). Cf. Credner, 
ss. 17 ff. 

2 Each of these three phrases 
possesses a peculiar meaniug corre- 
sponding to the notions of the 
Church, the Truth, the Faith. 

i. e O kclvCjv rijs €KK\Tjo-ias ex- 
presses that Eule or governing prin- 
ciple by which the Church of God 
in its widest sense is truly held to- 
gether, and yet gradually unfolded 
in the different stages of its growth. 
In early Christian writers it specially 
described that which was the com- 
mon ground of the Old and Xew 
Testaments. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 
VI I. 16. 105 ; Orig. dc Princ. iv. 9. 
But it is no less applied to the pe- 
culiar Eule and order of the Chris- 
tian Church; yet still to that Eule 



as being one, and not as made up of 
many rules. Cf. Corn. ap. Euseb. 
II. E. VI. 43. So also we hud kclvuv 
€KK\r)o-ia<TTucbs in Synod. Ant. ap. 
Eouth, Fell. in. 291 ; Concil. Sic. 
Can. 2, 6, &c. And as applied to 
details, 6 kclvuv in Cone. Neocces. Can. 
14. Cf. Eouth, it. 208. Yet cf. Syn. 
Ant. ap. Eoutb, ill. 305. 

ii. '0 kclvuv ttjs cWyOeias. As 
the Eule of the Church regarded the 
outward embodiment of divine teach- 
ing in a society, so the Eule of Truth 
had reference to the informing life 
by which it is inspired. Clem. Alex. 
VII. 16. For the Christian this Eule 
was the expression of the funda- 
mental articles of his creed. Cf. 
Iren. c. Hcer. I. 9. 4 ; 22.1; Novat. 
de Tr'in. 21; Eirm. Ejj. (Cypr.) 

LXXV. 

iii. kclvuv ttjs irlprecos. The 
Eule of Truth, when viewed in this 
concrete form, became the Eule of 
Faith. The phrase first occurs in 
the letter of Polycrates (Euseb. 
II. E. v. 24), and repeatedly in Ter- 
tullian (e.g. de Yel. Virrj. 1). 

Credner has discussed these va- 
rious phrases with his usual care 
and research ; but it is surprising to 
find a scholar speaking repeatedly 
of 6 Kay up iKKXTjaiaariKos {a. a. 0. 
ss. 20 — 58). 



454 On the History of the word Kavcov. 

appendix the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church. Thus 
Clement speaks of the 'Ecclesiastical Canon' as consisting in 
the 'harmonious concord of the Law and the Prophets with 
* the dispensation (BiaO^Kyj) given to men at the presence of the 
6 Lord among them 1 .' In other words, the Eule which de- 
termined the progress of the Church was seen in that principle 
of unity by which its several parts were bound together, ' in 
'virtue of the appropriate dispensations [granted at successive 
1 periods], or rather in virtue of one dispensation adapted to the 
< wants of different times 2 .' But this principle of unity found a 
clear expression 'in the one unchangeable rule of faith 3 ,' the 
Apostolic enunciation of the great facts of the Incarnation, in 
which all earlier Revelations and later hopes found their ex- 
planation and fulfilment. 

(y) The Rule At the beginning of the fourth century the word received a 
0/ Discipline. & & 1 . . . , -,.-, 

still more definite and restricted meamng, without losing the 

original idea involved in it. The standard of revealed truth 

was the measure of practice no less than of belief; and 

Sy nodical decisions were regarded in detail as 'Canons' of 

Christian action 4 . In particular the sum of such decisions 

affecting those specially devoted to the ministry in holy things 

was the 'Rule' by which they were bound; and they were 

described simply as 'those included in or belonging to the 

4 Rule,' just as we now speak of 'ordination' and 'orders 5 .' 

1 Clein. Alex. Strom. VI. 15. 125 : fiivovs irpb KarapoXrjs kSct/jlov iyvwKibs. 
KavCov €KK\7)<na(TTucbs ij awydia Kal 3 Tertull. de Vel. Virg. 1. 

7] <TVfx<f>uvLa vofJLov re Kal irpoipffOiv 4 The ordinances of Gregory of 

7-77 Kara ttju rod Kvpiov irapovviav Neo-Csesarea (c. 262 A.D.) and those 

irapadido/xepy 5ia0?}/q7. Cf. p. 457, of Peter of Alexandria (c. 306 A.D.), 

n. 3. taken from his work 7repl fieravolas 

2 Clem. Alex. Strom, vn. 17. 107: (Kouth, Bell. Sacr. m. 2566°.; iy. 
Hard re ofo virbaTaaiv Kara re eV£- 23 ff.), are called ( Canons,' but it is 
voiav Kara re apxty ^ard re e£oxV probable that the title was given to 
fiovrjv elvai <$>ap.ev rr)v apxaiav Kal them at a later time. The first 
Ka0o\LK7}p €KK\t)<riav, els eubr^ra irl~ Council which gave the name of 
crews puas /caret rds oUeias diadrjKas, Canons to its decrees was that of 
fjiaWov de Kara tt)v diadrjKTju ttjv /niav Antioch (34 1 A. D. ) : in the earlier 
diacpdpois rots xpoVots, ^ds ( r0 ^ Qeov) Councils they were called 8byp,ara 
rep (3ov\e\jpiaTi 6Y eVds (roO Kvpiov), or Spot. Cf. Credner, p. 5 in. 
drvvdyovcrav roi>s t}8t) fcararercry/^- 5 The earliest instance of this use 
vovSf ovs irpo&puiev b debs diKaiovs eVo- of the word with which I am ac- 



On the History of the word Kavcov. 



455 



There was a further stage in the history of the word when appendix 
it assumed a definitely passive meaning, as when applied to the 
fixed Psalms appointed for festivals, or to the i Canon/ the passive sens". 
invariable element of the Roman Liturgy, in the course of 
which the dead were commemorated or 'canonized 1 .' 

Hitherto no instance of the application of the word kolvuv ii. As applied 
to the Holy Scriptures has been noticed, and the earliest with ture. 
which I am acquainted occurs in Athanasius : but the. deriva- The deriva- 

x t UveS Of Kavuiu 

tives kolvovlkos, koivovlCu), occur in Origen , though these words were used, 



quainted occurs in the Nicene de- 
crees : Can. 16: irpea^vTepoi rj bid- 

KOVOl 7} 6Xu$ £v Tip KOLVOPL e^eTa^OfieVOl. 

Can. 17 : iroXXol ev Tip Kavbvi e£er<x£6- 
fievoi. Can. 19: ...TreplrQvdiaKovKTO'Qv 
Kal 6'Xws tCov ev Tip Kavbvi (al. KXf)pip) 
e^eTa^o/xiviov. Cf. Cone. Ant. Can. 
6 : 6 afro* de opos enl Xai'K&v Kal 
irpeo-pvTepuv Kal biaKovuv Kal irdv- 
tojv tlov ev Tip Kavbvi (al. ev Tip kXtj- 
pip KaTaXeyofievuv). Cone. Chalc. 
2 : 7) 6'Xws Tiva rod Kavbvos. But this 
KavLbp must not be confounded with 
the KaTakoyos, though the same per- 
sons might be described as ev Tip 
KaTaXbyip and ev Tip Kavbvi. Thus 
the two are joined in Cone. Trull. 5 : 
firjdels tCov iv lepaTiKip KaTa\6y(p tQv 
ev Tip Kavbvi... Again in Cone. Tol. 
III. 5 : qui vero sub canone ecclesias- 
tico jacuerint... Athanas. (?) de 
Virgin. I. p. 1052: oval irapdevip ttj 
firj oiio-r) virb Kavbva. Cf. Cone. Ant. 
1. The word KavoviKol first occurs 
in Cyril (Catech. Pref. 3, cf. Cone. 
Laod. 15; Cone. Constant. 1, 6), 
and is found frequently in later wri- 
ters. Du Cange (s. v.) quotes a 
passage which illustrates very well 
the origin of the word : Canonici se- 
cundum canones — an earlier writer 
would have said canonem — regulares 
secundum regulam vivant. 

Bingham (Antiq. I. 5, 10) and 
Credner (p. 56), though with hesita- 
tion, identify the KavCbv and the /ca- 
rdXoyos, but the passages quoted 
are I think conclusive against the 
identification. 



1 "Cf. Suicer, s. v. 

The interchange of KavoviKbs and 
KadoXiKos, not only in the title of the 
seven Catholic Epistles but else- 
where, is a singular proof of the sup- 
posed universality of an authorita- 
tive judgment of the Church. Cf. 
Euseb. H. E. in. 5 ; Cone. Carthag. 
XXiv, (Int. Gr.) 

There is a curious account of /ca- 
poviKTj— the mathematical basis of 
music—in Aulus Gellius, N.A. xvi. 
18; and in other Roman scientific 
writers the word canonicus is used 
to express that which is determined 
by definite rules, as the phenomena 
of the heavens. Cf. August, de 
Civ. Dei, in. 15. 1, and Forcellinus, 
s. v. 

3 Orig. de Princ. IV. 33 : in Scrip- 
turis Canonicis nusquam ad praesens 
invenimus. Id. Prol. in Cantic. s.f. : 
Illud tamen palam est multa vel ab 
apostolis vel ab evangelistis exempla 
esse prolata et Novo Testamento in- 
serta, quae in his Scripturis quas 
Canonicas habemus, nunquam legi- 
mus, in apocryphis tamen inveniun- 
tur et evidenter ex ipsis ostenduntur 
assumpta. Id. Comm. in Matt. §117: 
In nullo regulari libro hoc positum 
invenitur. Id. Comm. in Matt. § 28: 
Nee enim fuimus in libris canoniza- 
tis historiam de Janne et Jambre 
resistentibus Mosi. Just before Ru- 
finus says : Fertur ergo in Scripturis 
non manifestis (i. c. apocryphis, as 
lie elsewhere translates the word). 
The phrase (Prol. in Cantic. s.f.) cum 



45$ 



On the History of the word Kavdv* 



APPENDIX 
A. 

before the 
ward itself, 



hut not com- 
monly till 
after the per- 
secution of 
Diocletian. 



[a] KOLVOVIKOS. 



did not come into common use till the beginning of the fourth 
century. In the interval Diocletian had attempted to destroy 
the 'Scriptures of the Christian Law;' and as far as his efforts 
tended to make a more complete separation of authoritative 
from unauthoritative boobs, they were likely to fix upon the 
former a popular and simple title. Yet even after the perse- 
cution of Diocletian the word Canonical was not universally 
current. Eusebius I believe nowhere applies it to the Holy 
Scriptures; and its reappearance in the writings of Athana- 
sius seems to shew that it was originally employed in the school 
of Alexandria, and thence passed into the general dialect of 
the Church. 

The original meaning of the whole class of words, Canonical, 
Canonize, Canon, in reference to the Scriptures is necessarily to 
be sought in that of the word first used. But kolvovlkos, like 
kolvwv, was employed both in an active and in a passive sense. 
Letters which contained rules, and letters composed according 
to rule, were alike called Canonical 1 ; and so the name may 
have been given to the Apostolic writings either as containing 
the standard of doctrine or as ratified by the decision of the 
Church. Popular opinion favours the first interpretation 2 : 
the prevalent usage of the word however is decidedly in 
favour of the second. Thus the Latin equivalent of kolvovlkos. 



neque apud Hebr3eos...amplius ha- 
beatur in Canone, is probably only a 
rendering of Kavovi£o[xai. 

Since these words are found in 
works which survive only in the 
Latin version, they have been sus- 
pected by Redepenning (Origenes, I. 
239) to be due to Rufinus, and not 
to Origen. Credner follows Rede- 
penning without reserve. But I can 
see no ground for the suspicion. 
The fact that in one place we have 
regularis and in another canonicus 
to express the same idea marks an 
exact translation. 

1 The canonical letter of Gregory 
of Csesarea (c. 262 a. d.) is an in- 
stance of the first kind (Routh, Hell. 



JSacr. in. 256 ff.). Oa the Utter re 
formatce or canonical t cf. Bingham, 

n. 4, 5- 

2 Even Credner has sanctioned 
this view : * The Scriptures of the 
1 Canon (ypa<pal kclvovos) are,' he says, 
'the Scriptures of the Law: those 
1 writings are canonical which obtain 
' the force of Law : those writings are 
' canonized which are included among 
'them' (p. 67). Credner does not 
quote any instance of the phrase 
ypacpal Kavbvos, nor do I know one; 
but he supports his view by refer- 
ence to the words scriptural legis in 
the Acts of Felix (cf. p. 365), and to 
litterw fidei in TertulHan de Prober. 
14. 



On the History of the word Kavcov. 457 

regidaris, points to a passive sense, even though the analogy appendix 
be imperfect. Ecclesiastics again of every grade were called 
Canonici, as bound by a common rule; and in later times we 
commonly read of canonical obedience, a canonical allowance, 
and canonical hours of prayer. 

The application of kolvovl^u) (/?t/?A.ta Kavovi^oyieva, kckovovi- 0] KavovC£a. 
crfjiiva, aKavovidra) to the Holy Scriptures confirms the belief 
that they were called canonical in a passive sense. In classical 
Greek the word means to measure or form according to a fixed 
standard 1 . As in similar terms, the notion of approval was 
added to that of trial ; and those writings might fitly be said 
to be canonized which were ratified by an authoritative rule. 
Thus Origen says that c no one should use for the proof of doc- 
trine books not included among the canonized Scriptures 2 .' 
Athanasius again speaks of ' books which are canonized (/cavovt- 
6 £6fjL€va) and have been handed down' from former time 3 . The 
Canon of [Laodicea] forbade the public reading of i books 
' which had not been canonized (a/cavoVto-Ta).' And at a later 
time we read ' of books used in the Church and which have 
'been canonized 4 .' 

The clearest instance in early times of the application of y Ka ^v. 
the word Kavuv to the Scriptures occurs at the end of the enu- o/thu'lvord. 
meration of the books of the Old and New Testaments com- 
monly attributed to Amphilochius. 'This,' he says, 'would 
' be the most unerring Canon of the Inspired Scriptures.' The 
measure, that is, by which the contents of the Bible might be 
tried, and so approximately an index or catalogue of its con- 

1 Cf. Arist. Eth. Nic. IT. 3. 8, tea- fiiurj ttjs airoo-ToXiKrjs wapadocrews 

vovi^o}xev he kcl! ras ir payees... rjdovr) rjv e/c §ia5o%^s /cat Pixel's irapei\r]<pa- 

Kal \vttv- I Q later times the word fiev, /xera /cat rod kclvovLgoli iravras 

was used to express regular gram- rovs \6yovs rrj rod auTrjpos didaaKa- 

matical inflexion. Schol. ad Horn. Ata (Epist. Ptolem. ap. Epiph. Hcer, 

Odj/ss. IX. 347 : rb de ry irodev /ca- XXXIII. 7). 

vovifrTai; A very striking instance 2 Orig. Comm. in Matt. § 28: 

of the use of the word in this sense, Nemo uti debet ad confirmationem 

as applied to the substance of Apo- dogmatum libris qui sunt extra ca- 

stolic teaching, is found in the Let- nonizatas scripturas. 

ter of Ptolemaeus to Flora : fjiadrjo-rj 3 Athan. Ep. Fest. App. D. The 

6eov didovTos e^rjs /cat rrju tovtov [rod same phrase occurs in Leontius. 

ayadov] dpxn v Te Ka i ytvvTi<nv dftou- 4 Niceph. Stichometria, App. D. 



458 



On the History of the word Kavcov. 



APPENDIX 
A. 



Tts later 
meaning. 



stituent books 1 . But the use of the word was not confined 
within these limits. It was natural that the rule of written, 
no less than of traditional teaching, should be regarded in a 
concrete form. The idea of the ISTew Testament and the Creed 
grew out of the same circumstances and were fixed by the same 
authority. Thus Athanasius and later writers speak of books 
' without the Canon,' where the Canon is no longer the measure 
of Scripture, but Scripture itself as fixed and measured, the 
definite collection of books received by the Church as authori- 
tative. In this sense the word soon found general acceptance. 
The Canon was the measured field of the theologian, marked 
out like that of the athlete or of the Apostle by adequate 
authority. 

But though this was, as I believe, the true meaning of the 
word, instances are not wanting in which the Scriptures are 
called a Rule, as being in themselves the measure of Christian 
truth; for they possess an inherent authority though it was 
needful that they should be ratified by an outward sanction. 
At the beginning of the fifth century Isidore of Pelusium calls 
' the divine Scriptures the rule of truth 2 ;' and it is useless to 
multiply examples from later ages. Time proved the worth of 
the Apostolic words. The ideal Rule preceded the material 
Rule ; but after a long trial the Church recognized in the Bible 
the full enunciation of that law which was embodied in her 
formularies and epitomized in her Creeds. 



1 Amphil. Iamb, ad Sel. App. D. 

2 Isid. Pelus. Ep. cxiv. 6 kwuv ttjs ah-qdelas at delai ypa<paL 



APPENDIX B. 

ON THE USE OF APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS IN THE 
EARLY CHURCH. 

TWO different classes of writings may be described as Apo- appendix 
cryphal in respect to their claims to be admitted among Two dasses 
the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. The first ^^/^ 
consists of the scanty remains of the works of the immediate cn'phai. 
successors of the Apostles: the second of books professing 
either to be written by Apostles or to contain an authoritative 
record of their teaching. The history of the first class conse- 
quently illustrates the limits by, which the idea of Canonicity 
was bounded ; while the history of the second class offers a cri- 
terion of the critical tact by which the true and the false were 
distinguished by the early Church. The two classes together 
offer an instructive contrast to the New Testament as a whole, 
no less in their outward fortunes than in their inward cha- 
racter. 

It would not have been surprising if the writings of the t Writing 

* ° ° of Apostolic 

Apostolic Fathers had been invested with something of Apo- men. 

stolic authority, not indeed in accordance with their own 

claims ', but by the pardonable reverence of a later age for all 

those who had looked on the Truth at its dawning. Yet a few 

questionable epithets alone remain to witness to the existence 

of such a feeling; and no more than three books of this class 

obtained a partial ecclesiastical currency, through which they 

were at first not clearly separated from the disputed writings 

of the New Testament. fc __ . 

. The Epistle of 

The Epistle of Clement, the earliest and best authenticated Clement. 

i Cf. pp. $o ff. 



460 



On the use of Apocryphal 



Barnabas. 



APrENDix of tmcanonical Christian writings, is quoted by Irenaeus, by 
Clement of Alexandria, and by Origen, without anything to 
shew that they regarded it as an inspired book 1 . Eusebius 
omits all mention of it in his famous Catalogue of writings 
which claimed to be authoritative 2 ; and though many later 
writers were acquainted with it, no one I believe favours its 
reception among the Canonical Scriptures. 
The Epistle of The Epistle of Barnabas, in consideration of the name of 
the \ Apostle,' and of the peculiar character of its teaching, 
gained a position at Alexandria which it does not appear to 
have ever held in any other place 3 . It is contained together' 
with the Shepherd in the Sinaitic Manuscript of the Greek 
Bible. But Eusebius classes it among the ' spurious ' books ; 
and Jerome calls it ' Apocryphal 4 .' 

The Shepherd of Hermas again, which approximates in 
form and manner most closely to the pattern of Holy Scrip- 
tures, though commonly quoted with respect by the Greek 
fathers, is expressly stated by Tertullian to have been excluded 
from the New Testament ' by every Council of the Churches, ' 
Catholic or schismatic 5 . 
Honoured in Nov was it a mere accident that these three writings occu- 

of a sitpposed pied a peculiar position. They were supposed to be written by 
Sanction. men who were honoured by direct Apostolic testimony. But 
the letters of Poly carp and Ignatius, whose names the New 



The Shepherd 
of Hermas. 



1 Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 7. 38; iv. 
17. 107 (6 air6o~To\os K\r)/JL7)s) ; vi. 8. 
65. Cf. ib. v. 12. 81. Orig. dePrinc. 
11. 3. 6 ; Set. in Ezech. viii. Cf. in 
Joan. T. vi. 36. 

2 Euseb. H.E. in. 25. Cf. p. 371. 
This is the more remarkable because 
he elsewhere mentions the Epistle 
with great respect, cf. iii. 16: fieydXrj 
Kal Oavfxaaia eirio-roXif). Cf. also 
B. E. vi. 13. 

3 Clem. Alex. Strom. 11. 6. 31 : et/co- 
tws odv 6 cLTdaroXos Bapvdpas... ib. 
7. 35; II. 20. 116: oti fjLoi del irXei- 
bvuv X6ywz/ irapade^vop fxdprvp rbv 
diroo-roXiKou Bapvdpav, 6 d£ rdv e(35o- 
fiifjKOPTa fy kqX awepybs rov JlatiXov... 



Cf. Strom. II. 15. 67; ib. 18. 84; 
v. 8. 52 ; ib. 10. 64. 

Orig. c. Cels. I. 63 : yiypairrai 
eu rfj Bapvd(3a KadoXtKy i-maToXyj. 
Comm. in Mom. 1. 24: ...in multis 
Scripturse locis... Cf. de Princ. in. 
2. 4. 

4 Euseb. H. E. Hi. 25. Hieron. 
de Virr. III. 6 : Barnabas Cyprius..] 
epistolam composuit quae inter apo* 
cryphas Scripturas legitur. 

5 Tert. de Pudic. 10, 20. Cf. 
Hieron. in Hob. i. (i. 14). The re- 
ferences of Irenseus and Origen to 
the Shepherd have been noticed al- 
ready, pp. 337 n. 3, 319 n. i, 



Writings in the Earbj Church 



401 



Testament does not record, were never put forward as claiming appexdix 
Canonical authority 1 . And thus the high estimation in which 
the works of Clement and Barnabas and Hernias were held be- 
comes an indirect evidence of the implicit reverence paid to the 
Apostolic words, and of the Apostolic basis of the Canon. 

The usage of the Churches interprets and corrects the judff- Bu !,' w , v 

° l jo publicly re- 

ment of individual writers. The Epistle of Barnabas was read JJ**£ into 
in the time of Jerome, but among the Apocryphal Scriptures, 
and it is still found in the Sinaitic Manuscript after the Apoca- 
lypse. The Epistle of Clement was publicly read in the Church 
at Corinth and elsewhere' 2 ; and it also is included (with the 
second spurious Epistle) in the Alexandrine Manuscript of the 
Greek Bible 3 ; but in this case the book was placed after the 
Apocalypse; and so in both respects it occupied a position 
similar to that of the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, 
according to the judgment of our own Church. The Shepherd 
again was long regarded as a book useful for purposes of in- 
struction, and is found not only in the Greek Sinaitic Manu- 
script, but also in Latin Bibles; but it was definitely excluded 
from the Canon by Eusebius, Athanasius, and Jerome, who 
record its partial reception 4 . And in a word, no one of these 
writings is reckoned among the Canonical books in any Cata- 
logue of the Scriptures 5 . 

If then it be admitted, and this is the utmost that can be The writings - 

. of the Apod- 

urged, that these books were at one time ranged with the Anti- totic Fathers 

never reckon? I 

legomena of the New Testament 6 , it is evident that they occupied Canonical. 



1 Cf. Hieron. de Yirr. Ill 17: 
[Polyc. ad Phil. Epistola] in con- 
yento Asiaa legitur. 

2 Euseb. H. E. irt 16; IV. 23. 
Hieron. de Yirr. III. 15. 

3 The fact that this is the only 
copy of the Epistle now in existence 
is in itself a proof of its compara- 
tively limited circulation. 

4 Euseb. E. E. in. 25; Athanas. 
Ep. Eest. T. 1. 767. 

5 The Catalogue at the end of the 
Apostolic Canons may seem an ex- 
ception to this statement, since it 
ratifies the two Epistles and Consti- 



tutions of Clement ; but it has been 
shewn already that the peculiarities 
of this Catalogue received no conci- 
liar sanction. Cf. p. 389. 

6 According to the old text of the 
Stichometry of Xicephorus the Apo- 
calypse is classed with the writings 
of the Apostolic Fathers as Apocry- 
phal; but the truer text places it 
with the Apocalypse of Peter, the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
, and the Epistle of Barnabas, as dis- 
puted, while the remaining writings 
of the Apostolic Fathers, with some 
other books, are Apocryphal. 



462 On the use of Apocryphal 

appendix that position in virtue of a supposed indirect Apostolic autho- 
rity, just as the other books were disputed, because their claims 
to Apostolicity were also supposed to be indirect 1 . And it is 
equally certain that those who expressed the judgment of the 
Church, when a decision was first called for, unanimously ex- 
cluded them from the Canon, while with scarcely less unanimity 
they included in it the Epistles of St James and St Jude, the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse and shorter Epistles 
of St John. The ecclesiastical use of the writings of the Apo- 
stolic fathers was partial and reserved from the first, and it 
became gradually less frequent till it ceased entirely. "Wider 
knowledge and longer experience denied to them the sanction 
which it accorded to the doubtful books of the New Testament. 

ii. Apocry- Of Apocryphal writings directly claiming Apostolic autho- 

phal writings. . r Jr ° J ° r 

rity, four only deserve particular notice, the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews, and the Gospel, the Preaching, and the Apo- 
calypse of St Peter. The Gospel according to the Egyptians 2 , 
and the Acts of Paul and Thecla, never obtained any marked 
authority; and still less so the various Gospels and Acts which 
date from the close of the second century, and are popularly 
attributed to the inventive industry of Leucius 3 . 
^rdin^t ^ ne P assa S e which occurred in the Gospel according to the 

the Hebrews. Hebrews is found in a letter of Ignatius, who does not how- 
ever quote the words as written, but only on traditional autho- 
rity 4 . Papias again related a story 'of a woman accused of 
'many crimes before our Lord, which was contained in the 
' Gospel according to the Hebrews/ but the words of Eusebius : 
seem to imply that he did not refer to that book as the source 
of the narrative 5 . The evangelic quotations of Justin Martyr 

1 The second Epistle of St Peter icar Aiyvirrlovs. Cf. [Clem.] Ep. II. 
13 the only exception to this state- 12. See Introduction to the Study of 

. ment ; and that is beset with pecu- the Gospels, App. C. 
liar historical difficulties on every 3 Cf. p. 354. 

side. 4 jg n> aa \ Smyrn. iii. Cf. Jacob- 

2 Clem. Alex. Strom,, in. 9. 63 ; i&. son, I. c. 

13-93- TrpQroir nbr olv ev rots ira~ 5 Euseb. H. E. III. 39. Cf. Routh, 

padedofxfrois rjfuv Terrapcnv evayye- JRell. Sacr. I. 39. 
XIOIS OVK typpev TO p7]T0V, d\\' 4p t<£ 



Writings in the Early Church. 4G3 

offer no support to the notion that he used it as a coordinate appendix 
authority with the Canonical Gospels, but on the contrary dis- 
tinguish a detail which it contained from that which was written 
in the Apostolic memoirs \ Hegesippus is the first author who 
was certainly acquainted with it; but there is nothing to shew 
that he attributed to it any peculiar authority 2 . Clement of 
Alexandria and Origen both quote the book, but both distinctly 
affirm that the four Canonical Gospels stood alone as acknow- 
ledged records of the Lord's life 3 . Epiphanius regarded the 
( Hebrew Gospel' as a heretical work based on St Matthew. 
Jerome has referred to it several times 4 , and he translated it 
into Latin, but he nowhere attributes to it any peculiar autho- 
rity, and calls St John expressly the fourth and last Evangelist. 
Yet the fact that he appealed to the book as giving the testi- 
mony of antiquity furnished occasion for an adversary to charge 
him with making 'a fifth Gospel 5 / and at a later time, in 
deference to Jerome's judgment, Bede reckoned it among the 
1 ecclesiastical' rather than the ' Apocryphal writings 6 .' 

The Gospel of Peter has been already noticed. How far The Gospel 

* ^ a nd Preaching 1 

this Gospel was connected with the ' Preaching of Peter,' which of Peter 

is quoted frequently by Clement of Alexandria 7 , and ODce by 

Gregory of isazianzus 8 , is very uncertain 9 . There is indeed 

1 Cf. pp. 137 ff. Mich. II. c. vii. (quoted with the 



2 Heges. ap. Euseb. H. E.TX.12 
Routh, Rell. Sacr. 1. 277; supr, 
pp. 183 f. 

3 Clem. Alex. Strom. 11. 9. 45 
Orig. Comm. Horn, in Jer. xv, § 4. 

4 Dial. adv. Pelag. in. 2: In E 
vangelio juxta Hebr&os, quod Chal 



Song of Solomon, yet with hesita- 
tion); Comm. in Matt. 1. c. vi. 11; 
ib. 11. c. xii. 13; ib. IV. c. xxvii. 51; 
Comm. in Eph. ni. c. v. 4. Cred- 
ner (Beitr. I. 395 ff.) gives these and 
the remaining passages at length. 
5 Julian Pelag. ap. August. Op. 



daico quidem Syroque sermone sed imperf. iv. 8§. 

Hebraicis litteris scriptum est, quo 6 Bede, Comm. in Luc. in it. quot- 

utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, se- ed on Hieron. adv. Pelag. in. 1. 

cundum aposiolos, sive ut plerique See Introduction to the Study of the 

autumant juxta Matthceum, quod et Gospels, App. D. 

in Caesarieosi habetur bibliotheca, 7 Clem. Alex. Sti'om. I. 29. 182; 

narrat historia...Quibus testimoniis VI. 5. 39 ff. ; ib. 6. 48; ib. 15. 

si non uteris ad auctoritatem, utere 128. 

saltern ad antiquitatem, quid omnes 8 Greg. Xaz. Ep. ad Ccesar. I. 

ecclesiastici viri senserint. Cf. de Credner, Beitr. I. 353, 359. 

Virr. IH. 2 ; in Isai. iv. c. xi. ; id. 9 Some have argued that the Acts. 

xi. c. xl. ; in Ezcch. iv. c. xvi. ; hi the Preaching, the Doctrine, and tho 



464 



On the Use of Apocryphal 



APPENDIX 



not Canonical. 



nothing in the fragments of the preaching that remain which 
requires a severer censure than Serapion passed on the Gospel. 
And it seems very likely that both books contained memoirs 
of the Apostle's teaching based in a great measure on authentic 
traditions. 

It has been already shewn that it is uncertain whether the 
Gospel of Peter was regarded as Canonical at E-hossus 1 ; and 
even if it had been so, the custom of an obscure town, which 
was at once corrected by superior authority, cannot be set 
against the silence of the other early Churches, and the con- 
demnation of the book by every later writer who mentions it. 
In reply to a quotation from the Doctrine of Peter > Origen says 
that we i must first reply that that book is not reckoned among 
'the ecclesiastical books; and next shew that it is not a ge- 
* nuine writing of Peter nor of any one else who was inspired 
' by the Spirit of God ;' and Eusebius repeats the same judg- 
ment 2 . Nor am I aware that it was ever supposed to be a 
Canonical book. 

The Canonicity of the Apocalypse of Peter is supported by 
more important authority. The doubtful testimony of the 
Muratorian Canon has been considered before 3 . In addition 
to this, Clement of Alexandria wrote short notes upon it, as 
well as upon the Catholic Epistles and upon the Epistle of Bar- 
nabas 4 . But the book was rejected by Eusebius 5 , and I be- 
lieve by every later writer. 

Mention has been made already of the insertion of the two 

M ?£ u " Epistles of Clement and of the Epistle of Barnabas and the 

Shepherd in the Alexandrine and Sinai tic Manuscripts of the 

Greek Bible respectively. Two other Greek Manuscripts COn- 



ITie Apoca- 
lypse of Peter. 



Peculiarities 



scripts of 
Xeiv Testa- 
menU 



Apocalypse of Peter, the Preaching 
and Acts of Paul, and the Preaching 
of Peter and Paul, were only differ- 
ent recensions of the same work. It 
is perhaps nearer the truth to say 
that they were all built on a com- 
mon oral tradition. The variety 
of titles and forms is in itself a con- 
clusive argument against their gene- 



ral and public reception. Cf. Keuss, 

§ 253- 

1 Cf. pp. 342 sq. 

2 Orig. de Princ. 1. Praef. 8; cf. 
Comm. in Joan. xin. 17. Euseb. 
H. E. 111. 3. 

3 Cf. p. 191. 

4 Euseb. H. E. vi. 14. 

5 lb. III. 23. 



Writings in the Early Church. 4G5 

tain notices of Apocryphal writings which are curious, though appendix 

they are not of importance. At the end of the Codex Boerne- Cod> Boerner 

rianus (G) a Manuscript of the ninth century, which contains 

the thirteen Epistles of St Paul with some lacunae, after a 

vacant space occur the words : ' The Epistle to Laodiceans begins' 

[71730s XaovSaKrjcas (laudlcenses g.) apyerai]. This addition is 

not found in the Codex Augiensis (F) which was derived from 

the same original as G, nor is there any trace of the Epistle 

itself. Haimo of Halberstadt in the ninth century mentions 

the Latin cento of Pauline phrases which now bears the title 

'as useful though not Canonical 1 / and the inscription in G 

probably refers to the same compilation. 

In the Codex Claromontanus (T>) again after the Epistle to Co! Claro- 

v niont. 

Philemon there occurs a Stichometry of the books of the Old 

and New Testament, obviously imperfect and corrupt, and 
then follows, after a vacant space, the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
This Stichometry omits the Epistles to the Philippians, both to 
the Thessalonians, and to the Hebrews; and after mention- 
ing the Epistle to Jude thus concludes: 'The Epistle of Barna- 
'bas, the Apocalypse of John, the Acts of the Apostles, the 
'Shepherd, the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter 2 .' But 
Stichometries are no more than tables of contents; and both 
the contents and the arrangement of the different books in a 
Manuscript may have been influenced by many causes. 

1 See App. E. 

2 Tischdf. Cod. Clarom. p. 468. Prolegg. xi. Cf. App. D. 



C. HH 



APPENDIX C. 
THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT ON THE CANON. 

appendix rpHE famous fragment on the Canon of the New Testament, 
• which was first published in an unsatisfactory form by 
Muratori in 1740, has lately been examined by several scholars 
with the most exact diligence. The collation made by Dr 
Hertz in 1847 f° r Haron Bunsen (Analecta Ante-Niccena, 1. pp. 
137 f£) and the fac-simile traced by Dr Tregelles in 1857 leave 
absolutely nothing to be desired for a complete knowledge of 
the text itself. But the general character of the Manuscript in 
which it occurs has been strangely overlooked, and as this 
throws considerable light on the fragment itself I copied some 
pages of the context at Milan this year (1865) by the kind per- 
mission of Dr Ceriani, which are now first printed with the 
Canon* A cursory glance at them will shew what reliance 
can be placed on the perverse ingenuity of some recent scholars 
who have not scrupled to afhrm that the Canon, so far from 
being corrupt, is really one of the most correct texts which 
antiquity has bequeathed to us. 

The Manuscript {Bill. Ambros. Cod. 101) in which the 
Canon is contained was brought from Colum ban's famous mo- 
nastery at Bobbio. It may therefore probably be of Irish 
origin or descent, though there is nothing in the Manuscript 
itself, as far as I could observe, which proves this to be the 
case. It was written probably in the eighth (or seventh) cen- 
tury, and contains a miscellaneous collection of Latin frag- 
ments, including passages from Eucherius, Ambrose, transla- 
tions from Chrysostom, and brief expositions of the Catholic 
Creed. The first sheet ends (p. 9 b) abruptly in the middle of 



c. 



The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, 467 

a quotation from Eucherius Liber Formularum Spirit. Intel!, appendix 
[called in the Manuscript Be Xominibus\ cap. vi. beginning 
Vir et uxor vce vobis divitibus in Fvangelio, which closes the 
line. The next sheet (p. 10 a) begins at the top without any 
vacant space whatsoever quibus tamen interfuit, and the Canon 
extends over p. 10 a, p. 10 b, and p. n a to within eight lines 
of the bottom. A little more than half a line is left vacant at 
the end of the Canon, and then in the next line a new frag- 
ment from a Homily of Ambrose commences. It is impossible 
to tell how much has been lost between the first and second 
sheets. They probably formed. part of the same Manuscript, 
but the number of lines in the pages of the first sheet is twenty- 
four, and in those of the second sheet thirty-one. The style of 
writing is also somewhat different, but not more so I think 
than is often the case in different parts of the same Manuscript. 
The sheets have I believe no signature, but I omitted to 
look carefully for this. It may be added that the pages are 
generally furnished with a heading, but there is none over 
those containing the Canon except a simple I on the top of 
p. ii a. 

The Fragment stands exactly thus in the Manuscript 1 : 

p. 10 a. quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit* 

TERTIO EUAXGELII LIBRUM SECAXDO* LT7GAH 

lucas iste medicus post acensum* xpi. 

1. 2 secimdo. 
1. 3 ascensum. 

1 The fragment is of course writ- be accurately represented. The pre- 

ren wholly in capitals. Some of the positions are generally written with 

letters are larger than others, but it their cases: e. g. depassione. dcresur- 

does not appear certain that this is rectione, &c. The ae is generally 

due to anything but the caprice of written at length, but three or four 

the scribe and I have neglected to times (p. 10 a, 1. 29, p. 10 b, 11. S) 

notice the difference. The lines in a contracted form, 
printed in capitals are rubricated in The words correced in the Maira- 

the original. In the scanty punc- script are marked by an asterisk, 

tuation 1 have followed Dr Tre- The corrections (apparently by the 

gelles' facsimile. first hand) are given below the 

The division of the words cannot text. 

. ' HH2 



468 The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. 

appendix cum eo paulus quasi ut iuris studiosum. 

secundum adsumsisset numeni suo 5 

ex opinione concriset* dnm tamen nee ipse 
*duidit in carne et ide pro* asequi potuit* 
ita et ad natiuitate iohannis incipet dicere. 

QUARTI EUANGELIORUM IOHANNIS EX DECIPOLIS 

cohortantibus condescipulis et eps suis 10 

dixit conieiunate nrihi* odie triduo et quid 

cuique fuerit reuelatum alterutrum 

nobis ennarremus eadem nocte reue 

latum andreae ex apostolis ut recognis 

centibus cuntis iohannis suo nomine 15 

cunta* discribret* et ideo licit uaria sin 

culis euangeliorum libris principia 

doceantur nihil tamen differt creden 

tium fedei* cum uno ac principali spu de 

clarata sint in omnibus omnia de natiui 20 

tate de passione de resurrectione 

de conuesatione* cum decipulis suis 

ac de gemino eius aduentu 

primo in humilitate dispectus quod fo* 

*u secundum potetate* regali pre 25 

clarum quod foturum est. quid ergo 

mirum si iohannes tarn constanter 

sincula etia in epistulis suis proferat 

1. 6 concri&set. 
1. 7 d crossed out. 
... 'prout. 
1. 16 cuncta. 

describeret. 
1. 19 fidei. 

I. 22 conuersatione. 

II. 24, 25 The letters fo at the end of 1. 24 are fairly distinct. Those at 
the beginning of the next line are almost erased. Dr Tregelles conjectures 
that the scribe began to write foturum, and then discovering his error 
erased the letters which he had written. 

1. 25 potestate. 



The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. 469 

dicens in semeipsu qu?e uidimus oculis ArPExmx 

nostris et auribus audiuimus et inanus 3° 

nostrae palpauerunt haec scripsimus 

[uobis 
p. 10 b. sic enim non solum uisurern sed" auditorem 

sed et script ore omnium mirabiliu dni per ordi 

neni profetetur acta aute omniu apostolorum 

sub uno libro scribta sunt lucas obtime theofi 
le conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula 5 

gerebantur sicute* et semote passione petri 
euidenter declarat sed* profectione pauli ab* ur 
bes* ad spania proficescentis epistulae autem 
pauli quae a quo loco uel qua ex causa directe 
sint uolentatibus* intellegere ipse declarant io 

primu omnium corintheis scysmse heresis in 
terdicens deincepsb callaetis circumcisione 

r oman is aute ornidine"^ scrij)turarum sed et* 
principium earum os* esse xpm intimans 
prolexius scripsit de quibus sincolis neces 15 

se est ad nobis desputari cum ipse beatus 
apostulus paulus sequens prodecessoris sui 

ioliannis ordine non nisi comenati* . semptae 
eccleses* scribat ordine tali a corenthios 
prima . ad efesios seconda ad philippinses ter 20 

tia ad colosensis quarta ad calatas quin 

1. 31 nobis under the line almost illegible. Dr Tregelles first traced out 
the true reading. 

I. r sed et. 1. 6 sicut. 
L 7 sed et. 

II. 7, 8 ad urb€. 
1. 10 uolentibus. 

1. 13 ordine et erased. 

1. 14 os* erased. 
1. 18 nomenatl. 
1. 19 ecclesus. 



APPENDIX 
0. 



470 The Muratorian Fragment on me uanon. 

ta ad tensaolenecinsis sexta . ad romanos 

septima uerum eorentheis et tesaolecen* 

sibus licet pro correbtione iteretur una 

tamen per omnem orbem terrae ecclesia 25 

deflusa esse denoscitur et iobannis eni in a 

pocalebsy licet septe eccleseis scribat 

tamen omnibus dicit ueru ad filemonem una* 

et at titu una et ad tymotheu duas pro affec 

to et dilectione in bonore tamen eclesiae ca 3° 

tholice in ordinatione eclesiastice 



p. ii a. descepline scificate sunt fertur etiam ad 
laudicenses alia ad alexandrinos pauli no 
mine fincte ad besem* marcionis et alia plu 
ra quae in cbatbolicam* eclesiam recepi non 
potest fel enim .cum melle misceri non con 
cruit epistola sane iude et superscrictio 
iohannis duas in catbolica habentur et sapi 
entia ab amicis salomonis in bonore ipsius 
scripta apocalapse etiam iobanis et pe 
tri tantum recipemus* quam quidam ex nos 
tris legi in eclesia nolunt pastorem uero 
nuperrim et* temporibus nostris in urbe 
roma berma concripsit* sedente catbe 
tra urbis romae aeclesiae pio eps frater* 
eius et ideo legi eum quide oportet se pu 
plicare uero in eclesia populo neque inter 



io 



i5 



23 tAcsaolecensibus. 

3 heresem. 

4 catholicam. 
10 recipimus. 
12 e. 



1. 13 conscripsit. 
L 14 fratre. 



The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. 471 

profe*tas conpletum nuinero neque int appendix 

apostolos in fine temporum potest, 
arsinoi autem sen nalentini. nel mitiades* 
nihil in totum recipemus. qui etiam nonn 20 

*psalmorura librum marcioni conscripse 
runt una cum basilide assianum catafry 
cum contitutorem* 

ABRHA3I N0MERAUIT SERUolllS SUOS uer 
- naculus et cum trecentis dece et octo 25 

uir*s adeptus uictoriam liuerauit nepote 
prouatur diuisionis adfectus quando sic 
amabat nepotem ut pro eo nee uelli decli 
nare* periculum quid est nomerauit. hoc 
est elegit unde et illud non solu ad scien 30 

tiam dei refertur. sed etia ad cratia iustorum 
p. 1 j 5. quod in euangelio dicit dns ihs et capilli uestri 
omnes numerati sunt cognouit ergo dns qui 
sunt eius eos autem eos* aute* qui non sunt 
ipsius non dignatur cognoscere numerauit 
cccxviii ut scias non quantitate numeri sed me 5 
ritum electionis expressu. eos enim adscuit* 
quod 45, dignus* noruero iudicauit fidelium ****** 
qui in dni nostri ihu xpi passionem crederent 
ccc enim d* t greca littera significat. dece 
et octo aute summa ih exprimit nomen fidei 10 

ergo merito habraham uicit non popoloso 
exercito deneque eos quibus quinque regum 
arma ceserunt* cum paucis egressus uer 

1. 19 mitiadis. 

1. 23 constitutorem. 

1. 26 uiris. 

1. 29 declinaret. 

L 3 eos aute underlined. 

1. 6 adsczuit. 

1. 7 quos dignos. 

1. 9 d erased. 

1. 13 cesserunt. 



472 The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, 

appendix naculis triumfauit sed qui uincit non 

debet arorocare* sibi uictoria sed referre i5 

deo. hoc abraham docit qui triunipho 

homilior factus est non superuior. sacri 

ficium denique obtulit decimas dedit 

ideoque eum melchisedeh qui interpe 

tratione latine dicitur rex iustitise rex 20 

pacis benedixit erat enim sacerdos sum 

mi di qui est rex iustitise sacerdos dei 

non* cui dicitur tu es sacerdos in aeternu 

secondum ordine melcisedeh hoc est dei 

filius sacerdos patris qui sui corporis 25 

sacrificio patrem nostris repropicia 

uit dilectis*nomerauit abraam* seruo 

los suos uernaculos et cum cccxviii uiris 

adeptus uictoria liuerauit nepotem quid 

est nomerauit. hoc est elegit, unde' et illud 3° 

non solum ad scientia refertur sed 

[etiam ad cratia iustorum 
p. 11 a. quod in euangelio dicit dns ihs et capilli uestri 
omnes nomerati sunt ■ cognouit ergo dns qui 
sunt ipsius . eos autem qui non sunt ipsius non 
dignatur cognuscere . nomerauit aute cccviii 
ut scias non quantitate numeri sed meritum 5 

electionis expressum. eos autem sciuit quods* 
dignos numero iudicauit fideleium qui in dni 
nostri ihu xpi passion em crederent. ccc enim 
dece et octo greca littera significat xviii 
autem summa m exprimit nomen fidei. 10 

ergo abraham uicit non populosu exercitu 
denique eos quibus v regum arma cesserunt 
cum paucis egressus uernaculis trium 

1. 15 arrocare. 

1. 23 nisi. 

1. 27. A late hand in the margin hie dimite.... abraham. 

1. 6 quos. 



The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. 473 



phauit . sed qni uincit non debit arrocare 

sibi uictoria sed do referri hoc abraham 15 

docit qui triumpho hoinilior faetus est. 

non soperior sacrifigium n denique obtu 

lit decimas dedit ideoque eum melcisedeh. 

qui interpetraone latina rex iustitiae 

rex pacis benedixit . erat enim sacerdos 20 

summi di qui est rex iustitiae sacerdos di 

nisi cu* dicitur tu es sacerdos in aeternum 

secondum ordine melcisedeh hoc est filii 

us sacerdus patris qui suis* corporis sacri 

ficat patre nostris repropitiauit dilectis 25 

IXCIPIT DE EXPOSITIONEM DIUERSARU RERU 

Inprlmis mandragora in genesi genus 
punii siniilliniuni paruo peponis sped, 
e niuel odore (Eucher. Lugd. Instruct. 11. 3.) 

The fragment from Ambrose (De Ahrahamo, 1. 3. 15) which 
follows the Fragment on the Canon furnishes a fair criterion of 
the accuracy to be expected from the scribe. And by a re- 
markable accident the piece is more than usually instructive, 
for the whole fragment is repeated. Thus we have two copies 
of the same original and their divergence is a certain index of 
the inaccuracy of the transcriber which cannot be gainsaid. 
The second copy din%rs from the first in the following places : 



APrENII^ 

c. 



p. 11 b 



12 a 



27 nomerauit abraam (Abr. nomerauit). 

28 seruolos suos uernaculos (seruolus suos uernaculus), 

29 uictoria (uictoriam). 

29 omit prouatur — periculum (two and a half lines). 

31 scientia (pm. Dei). 

3 ipsius (eius). 

4 cognuscere (cognoscere). 
4 nom. aute (om. autem). 
4 cccviii (cccxviii). 

6 eos autem (eos enim). 



1. 12 cm. 



1. 24 sui. 



474 The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. 

appendix 6 sciuit (adsciuit). 

7 numero (nomero). 

7 fideleium (fidelium). 

9 dece et octo (d* r). 

1 1 ergo (ergo merito). 

ii abraham (habraham). 

1 1 populosu exercitu (popoloso exercito). 

12 denique (deneque). 

14 triumphauit (triumfauit). 

14 debit (debet). 

15 uictoria (uictoria). 

15 do referri (referre deo). 

1 7 soperior (superuior). 

17 sacrifigium (sacrificium). 

17 n(?) ; 

18 melcisedeh (melchisedeh). 

19 interpetraone (interpetratione). 
19 latina (latine). 

19 rex (dicitur rex). 

23 filiijus (films). 

24 sacerdus (sacerdos). 

24 sacrificat (sacrificio). 

25 repropitiauit (repropiciauit). 

Thus in thirty lines there are thirty-three unquestionable 
clerical blunders including one important omission (p. n b 29), 
two other omissions which destroy the sense completely (p. 
I2 a 11 merito, 19 dicitur), one substitution equally destructive 
of the sense (p. I2 a 9 decern et octo for t), and four changes 
which appear to be intentional and false alterations (p. i2 a 6 
scivit, 11 populosu exercitu, 23 filii, 25 sacrificat). We have 
therefore to deal with the work of a scribe either unable or 
• unwilling to understand the work which he was copying, and 
yet given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him from 
regard simply to the supposed form of words. To these graver 
errors must be added the misuse of letters (e. g. of u for and 
conversely of 0. for u : of g for c ; off for ph ; of i for e and con- 



The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. 475 

versely of e for i ; of ei for i ; of u for b ; of c for ch), and the appendix 
omission of the final m. 

Nor yet was the actual writer of the Manuscript the only 
author of errors. It appears from the repetition of one or two 
obvious mistakes in the repeated fragment that the text from 
which the copy was made was either carelessly written or 
much injured. Thus we have in both transcripts ad cratia, 
docit, homilior, ddectis (for delictis); and it is scarcely likely 
that interpetratione and interpetraone could have been copied 
severally from a legible original. 

On the other hand the text itself as it stands is substantially 
a good one. The errors by which it is deformed are due to 
carelessness and ignorance and not to the badness of the source 
from which it was taken. But these errors are such as in 
several cases could not be rectified without other authorities 
for comparison. 

In the sheet which precedes the Fragment on the Canon 
the same phenomena occur. There is in that also the 
same ignorance of construction: the same false criticism: the 
same confusion of letters and terminations. If we now apply 
the results gained from the examination of the context to the 
Fragment on the Canon, part of it at least can be restored with 
complete certainty; and part may be pronounced hopelessly 
corrupt. It has been shewn that a fragment of thirty lines 
contains three serious omissions and at least two other changes 
of words wholly destructive of the sense, and it would therefore 
be almost incredible that something of the like kind should not 
occur in a passage nearly three times as long. Other evidence 
shews that conjecture would have been unable to supply what 
is wanting or satisfactorily correct what is wrong in the one 
case, and there is no reason to hope that it would be happier 
in the other. 

i. Two of the commonest blunders in the Manuscript are 
the interchange of u and o and the omission of the final m. 
Of these undoubted examples occur : p. i i a 25, 11^ 9 dece, 1 i b 24 



476 The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. 

appendix secondum ordine, p. 9* 22 in mala partem &c. n b 11 popoloso 
exercito, p. i2 a 11 populosu exercitu, p. i2 a 24 sacerdus &c. In 
the Fragment similar errors occur p. io a 2 tertio (-urn), secundo 
(-um) ; 4 eo (eum)~ 11 triduo (-urn); [23 adventu (-to)]; 24 
primo (-um); [foit (fuit)] ; 26 foturum; 29 semetipsu (-0); 
p. io b 1 visurem (-orem); 12 circumcisione (-em); 17 apostulus; 
20 seconda ; 29 affecto; n a 6 epistola (elsewhere epistula). 

2. The interchange of e and i (y) is even more common. 
Examples occur: p. Ji b i6 docit; 27 dilectis (delictis); I2 a i4 
debit, 15 referri (referre); n b i2 deneque; 9 a 11 proxemi. In 
the Fragment the same error is found in various combinations : 
p. io a 5 numeni (nomine); 8 incipet; 9 iohannis (so 1. 15, io b 26); 

14 recogniscentibus; 16 discriberet, licit; 24 dispectus; p. io b 3 
profetetur; 5conprindit; 6 sicute; 8 proficescentis ; 1 1 corintheis ; 

15 prolexius; 16 desputari; 18 nomenatim;- 19 corenthios; 20 
philippinses ; 21 colosensis; 23 corentheis; 26 deffusa, denosci- 
tur; 27 apoealebsy, eccleseis; p. n a 3 heresem; 4 recepi (10, 20 
recipimus). 

3. The aspirate is also omitted or inserted : p. 8 b 26 
talamo; n b n Habraham; i2 a 18 Melcisedeh. Thus we have 
in the Fragment p, io a 11 odie; p. io b 11 scysmae. 

4. G and g are interchanged: p. n b 15 arrocare; 31 cratia; 
I2 a i7 sacrifigium. So in the Fragment io a 17 sinculis, 
28 sincula; io b 15 sincolis (5 singula); 12 callsetis, 21 calatas; 
n a 6 concruit; 23 catafrycum. 

5. E and ae are interchanged : p. 9 a i3 consumate iustitiae ; 
p. 9 a 9 audi et vidae. In the Fragment io a 25 preclarum; 
io b 9 directe; 10 ipse; 18 semptae ; 30 eclesiae catholice; 31 

* eclesiastice descepline; p. n a 1 sclficate; 3 fincte, heresem; 6 
iude; 14 aeclesiae. 

6. F andjp/& : n b 14 triumfauit (16 triumpho). So in the 
Fragment p. io b 4Theofile; 28 Filemonem. 



The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. 477 

7. Another common interchange is that of b and p which appendix 
occurs in the Fragment : p. io b 4 scribta obtiine; 24 correbtione ; 
27 apocalebsy: and conversely n a 16 puplicare. 

In addition to these changes of letters the repetition of 
letters and the omission of repeated letters are fruitful sources 
of error. Of the former there are examples: p. n b i5 aroro- 
care, 3 eos autem. In the Fragment both I believe occur. 
In p. n a 6 superscrictio iohannis is an evident mistake for 
superscript iohannis, the having been falsely added to the ti 
from a confusion with the corresponding syllable of the next 
word. Again in p. io a 22 the pronoun suis requires an ante- 
cedent and it is extremely likely that dni was omitted between 
the words de nativitate. So again in p. io b 3 profitetur requires 
se which was probably lost after visorem before sed. It is not 
unlikely that in p. n a 2 alia should be- repeated. 

One false reading appears to be due to the mechanical as- 
similation of terminations of which examples occur: p. i2 a 19 
interpetraone latina (-ne); 11 populosu exercitu; p. n b n 
popoloso exercito. Thus p. io b 4 optime Theophile should almost 
certainly be optime Theophilo. The phrase * optime Theophile ' 
is found in the Preface to the Gospels and not in the dedication 
of the Acts, and could not therefore be used as the title of the 
latter book. 

Some forms are mere senseless and unintelligible blunders : 
io a 6concribset; io b 22, 23 Tensaolenecinsis, Thesaolecensibus ; 
n a 9 apocalapse. And the inconsistency of the scribe is seen 
in the variations of spelling the same word : io b 11 Corintheis, 
19 Corenthios, 23 Corentheis; and so with Iohannes and dis- 
cipulus. But prodecessoris (io b 17) and finctse (n a 3) are 
probably genuine forms. 

If then we take account of these errors we shall obtain a text 
of the Fragment as complete as the conditions of correction 
will allow. Two or three passages in it will remain which can 
only be dealt with by conjectures wholly arbitrary and un- 
certain. 



APPENDIX 
0. 



478 The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. 

* * # * * ##* 

quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit 1 . Tertium Evangelii li- 
brum secundum Lucan Lucas iste medicus post ascensum 
Christi, cum eum Paulus quasi tut juris 2 studiosum secundum 
adsumsisset nomine suo ex opinione 3 conscripsit — Dominum 
tamen nee ipse vidit in came — et idem prout assequi potuit : 
ita et a nativitate Johannis incepit dicere* tQuarti 4 Evange- 
liorum Johannes ex discipulis. Coliortantibus condiscipulis et 
episcopis suis dixit: Conjejunate mihi hodie triduum, et quid 
cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum 5 nobis enarremus. Eadem 
nocte revelatum Andrew ex apostolis, ut recognoscentibus 
cunctis, Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret. * * * Et 
ideo 6 licet varia singulis Evangeliorum libris principia docean- 
tur nihil tamen differt 7 credentium fidei, cum uno ac principali 
spiritu declarata sint in omnibus omnia de nativitate, de 
passione, de resurrectione, de conversatione cum discipulis 
suis, ac de gemino ejus advento 8 — primum in humilitate des- 
pectus, quod fuit, secundum potestate regali prseclarum, quod 
futurum est. * * * Quid ergo mirum si Johannes tarn con- 
stanter singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semet- 
ipso 9 Quae, vidimus oculis nostris, et auribus midivimus, et 

1 Et ita, i. e. koI ovtus, even so 5 Alterutrum. Let us relate to 
(as he had heard from St Peter) one another the revelation which 
without addition or omission. Eu- we receive, to whichever of the 
seb. H. E. in. 39. two parties the revelation may be 

2 Ut juris studiosum secundum. given. 

The words ut juris must be corrupt. 6 The whole passage from Et ideo 
Juris might stand for rou SikclIov, — futurum est comes in very ab- 
out not for TTJs §ikclio(fvv7)s. Virtutis ruptly and has no connexion with 
seems to be nearer the sense. The what precedes, which could be ex- 
correction of Routh secum for secun- pressed by ideo; and similarly what 
d h <rii (cf. Acts xv. 37) is very plau- follows is not connected with it by 
sible. If secundum is correct it must ergo. 

mean as assistant, as in the second 7 Nihil tamen differt, ovdfr diacpt- 

rank. /oet rrj — irluTei. 

3 Ex opinione, i. e. Kara do^av, 8 Advento. The relatives and ad- 
with reference to Luke i. 3. £5o£e jectives which follow shew that this 
k&juloL was a neuter form answering to 

4 Quarti. There is no analogy event um, inventum, &c. Possibly it 
in the Fragment for the change to occurs also in Ter. Phorm. I. 3, 1. 
quartum. Probably some sentence 9 In semetipso. Kad" 1 eavrov. Per- 
or clause has been omitted from haps it may be better to read in 
which auctor could be supplied. semetijpsum. 



c. 



The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. 479 

manus nostrce 'palpaverard, hcec scripsimus ? l Sic enini non appendix 
solum visorem [se] , sed et auclitoreni, sed et scriptorero. omnium 
mii-abilium domini per ordinem profitetur. Acta autem om- 
nium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optime 
Theophilo comprendit, quia sub prsesentia ejus singula gere- 
bantur, sicuti et tsemote 2 passionem Petri evidenter declarat, 
sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis.'t* 
* * * Epistula3 autem Pauli, qua3, a quo loco, vel qua ex causa 
directse sint, volentibus intelligere ipsse declarant. Primum 
omnium Corinthiis schisma h tresis interdicens, deineeps Galatis 
circumcisionem, Pomanis autem ordine scripturarum, 3 sed et 
principium earum esse Christum intimans, prolixius scripsit, 
de quibus singulis necesse est 4 a nobis disputari; cum ipse 
beatus apostolus Paulus, sequens prodecessoris sui Johannis 
ordinem, nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat ordine 
tali : ad Corintliios prima, ad Epliesios secunda, ad Philippenses 
tertia, ad Colossenses quarta, ad Galatas quinta, ad Thessaloni- 
censes sexta, ad Pomanos septima. "Verum Corinthiis et Thes- 
salonicensibus licet pro correptione iteretur 5 una tamen per 
omnem orbem terrse ecclesia diffusa esse dinoscitur ; et Johan- 
nes enim in Apocalypsi, licet septem ecclesiis scribat, tamen 

1 The quotation from i John i. I Paul. Perhaps by reading seniota 
is not verbal, but the word palpa- declarant a fair sense may be ob- 
verunt for contrectaverunt (tractave- tained. The personal narrative of 
runt, temptaverunt) is to be noticed. St Luke deals with part of the Apo- 
Tertallian twice quotes the verse stolic history, just as detached allu- 
with the Vulg. rendering ; but Je- sions clearly point to the Martyrdom 
rome and Victorinus quote palpa- of Peter (John xxi. [8, 19); and 
verunt, and palpare represents \prj\a- even the journey of Paul to Spain 
<bav in Luke^xxiv. 39. (Rom. xv. 24 ff.). It is however 

2 Semote proficiscentis. This sen- more likely that some words have 
tence is evidently corrupt. If the been lost at the end of the sentence, 
general character of the errors of such as significat Scriptura. 
the manuscript had been favourable 3 Ordine Scripturarum, according 
to the changes it would have been to the general tenour of the Scrip- 
the simplest correction to read se- tures. 

moid passione...sed et profectione... 4 The reference appears to be to 
proficiscentis, i. e. the narrative was the treatise from which the Frag- 
that (in the main) of an eye-witness, ment is taken. 

as he evidently shews by setting 5 /. e. so that the mystical number 

aside without notice events so re- seven, symbolizing the unity of the 

markable as the Martyrdom of Peter Church, is apparently lost? 
and even the last great journey of 



480 The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. 

appendix omnibus dicit. Yerum ad Philemonem imam et ad Titum 
c. 

unam, et ad Timotheum duas pro affectu et dilectione ; in 

honore tamen ecclesise catholicse in ordinatione ecclesiastical 

discipline sanctificatse sunt. Fertur etiam ad Laodicenses 

[alia], alia ad Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine finctee ad hseresim 2 

• Marcionis, et alia pi lira quae in catholicam ecclesiam recipi non 

potest 3 : fel enim cum melle misceri non congnrit. Epistula 

sane Judse et superscripti Johannis duas in catholica 4 haben- 

tur; tet Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius 

scripta 5 . Apocalypses etiam Johannis et Petri tantum recipi- 

mus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt. Pastorem 

vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas 

conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romse ecclesiae Pio episcopo 

fratre ejus; et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se publicare 6 

vero in ecclesia populo, neque inter prophetas, tcompletum 

numero 7 , neque inter apostolos, in finem temporum potest. 

Arsinoi autem seu Valentini, vel tMiltiadis, nihil in totum re- 

cipimus. Qui etiam novum psalmorum librum tMarcioni 

conscripserunt, una cum Basilide, tAssianum Cataphrygum 

constitutorem 8 * * * 

1 Duas. It seems best to change feminine substantive formed like 
the preceding una, una into unam, trios. 

unam than to regard this as a nomi- 5 It is difficult to understand this 

native, which however probably oc- allusion, if the text be sound. Com- 

curs below. The tamen in the fol- pare Dr Tregelles in the Journal of 

lowing clause implies the opposition Philology, iv. April, 1855. 

of scnpsit or the like. 6 Se publicare, i. e. drjuoo-ietieaOat. 

2 Ad kceresim, i. e. wpbs alpeviv, 7 Completum numero. This ap- 
bearing upon, whether against it or pears to be corrupt, for the phrase 
otherwise. The allusion seems to can scarcely mean 'A collection 
be to the Epistle to the Hebrews. made up fully in number, 1 as if Pro- 

3 Recipi non potest, i. e. irapaXafi- phetas were equivalent to Co)*pus 
pdveadai ov bvvarbv. Prophetarum (Volkmar). 

4 In catholica, the Catholic 8 The conclusion is hopelessly 
Church ; if the original reading was corrupt, and evidently was so in the 
not in catholicis. Credner is, I be- copy from which the Fragment was 
lieve, right in regarding duas as a derived. 



APPENDIX D. 

THE CHIEF CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS OF THE 
BIBLE DURING THE FIRST EIGHT CENTURIES. 

No. 

A. Catalogues ratified by Conciliar authority : appendix 

i. The Laodicene Catalogue i. 

2. The Carthaginian Catalogue ; and ... ii. 

3. The Apostolic Catalogue: both ratified at the 

Quinisextine Council, Can. 2 iii. 

B. Catalogues proceeding from the Eastern Church : 

1. Syria. 

Chrysostom, Synopsis iv. 

Junilius v. 

Johannes Damascenus vi. 

Ebed Jesu vii. 

2. Palestine. 

Melito viii. 

Eusebius ix. 

Cyril of Jerusalem x. 

Epiphanius xi. 

[Cod. Alex.] xii, 

3. Alexandria. 

Origen xiii. 

Athanasius , '. xiv. 

C. I I 



APPENDIX 
D. 



Concilium 
Laodicb- 

hcm. 

363 A.D. 



482 Catalogues of Books of the Bible 

No. 

4. Asia Minor. 

Gregory of Nazianzus xv. 

Amphiiochius xvi. 

The 'Sixty Books' xvii. 

5. Constantinople. f 

Leontius xviii. 

Nicephorus xix. 

C. Catalogues proceeding from the Western Church : 

1. Africa. 

Stich. ap. Cod. Clarom xx. 

Augustine xxi. 

2. Italy. 

Muratorian Canon xxii. 

Philastrius xxiii. 

Jerome xxiv. 

Hufinus xxv. 

[Innocent] xxvi. 

[Gelasius] xxvii. 

Cassiodorus xxviii. 

3. France. 

Hilary xxix. 

4. Spain. 

Isidore xxx. 

5. Mediaeval. 

John of Salisbury xxxi. 

Hugo of St Victor xxxii. 

I. 1 

Can. lix. 2 (Cf. Bickell, Stud. u. Krit. in. ss. 611 ff.; supr. 
pp. 382 sqq.) 

v0\ "Ort ov Set l§iu>TLKOv<s xf/aXfJiovs XeyecrOcu iv rrj eK/cA^o-ia, 

1 Ea quae ad Novum Tcstamenlum ecclesia cantari, nee libros prcetcr ca- 
spectant ex libris manuscriptis potis- nonem legi, scd sola sacra rohnnina 
simum hausi, csetera ex impressis. novi testamenti vel veteris. Cui con- 

2 E cod. Bibl. Univ. Cant. Ee. iv. sentt. intt. Syrr. Codd. Mus. Brit. 
19. Coll. cod. Arund, 533 Mus. Brit. 14,526, 14,528, 14,529. 

(Ar.) Dionysius Exig. hsec tantum ha- Idem Canon, nisi quod Baruch 

bet : Non oportet plebeios psalmos in Zamentat tones et Epistola omittuntur, 



during the first Eight Centuries. 483 

ov&e 0LKav6vi(TTa /3i/3Xia, dXXd fxova rd KavoviKa ttJs Kaivf}<z koL APPENDIX 

TraXatas 1 %wSrjicfs, "Ocra Sec /3c/3Xca dvayivwo-KCorOai* 2 7raXacas 

SiaOiJK-i]*;' a T weens Koapov. ft "E^oSos e£ Alyv~TOv. y Aeutrt- 

kov. 8' 'Apc(9/xot. € Aeurepovo'/uov. r 'Irjo-ovs ISavrj. £' KpcTCu, 

e ~Povd. 7] 'Eo-#?7p. & fSacr iXeiwv irp^rrj koX Sevre'pa,. i (3a<jiXeiu>v 

rpL-nj kolI rerdprrj. ta IIc.paXei7ro/xeva, irpwrov koX Sevrepov. ip 

"EcrSpag, 7rpioTOv kcu Seurepov. ly Bt/3Xos tyaXpLtov eKarov it^vty]- 

kovtol. iS' UapoLfALai ^oXofiuvTOS. it ''EKKXrjo-LacrTyjs. ls-' ^Acr/xa 

do-pLaTuv. it>' 'lw/3. vq AajSe/ca irpofyrJTai. iff 'Hcrcua?. k 'Iepe- 

jcuas kcxc Bapoi;^ Qprjvol kol 'Ettioto/W. Ka' 'ie^eKt^'X. k/3' AaviyX. 

Ta Se t^s Kaivrjs Sca^K^s 3, euayyeXta S', Kara MaT0cuoi/, Kara 

Map/cov, Kara AovKoiv, Kara Iwavvrjv. 7rpa£ecs aTrocrroX^v. eVtcrTO- 

Xac KadoXcKal kind* oirroos 4, 'la/coo/Joi; a'. II expor a'. /?'. 'Icoawoi; 

a'. /3'. y' D . 'IovSa a'. eVccrroXac IlauXoi; cS' 6 . 7rpo? e Ptop.acoL'9 a' # 

Trpos KopwOiovs a. /?'• 7rpos TaXaras a'* 7rpos 'E ^>ecr ious a'* 7rpo? 

<I>tXi7r7r?7crcot>s a • *7rpos KoXatxcraecs a • 7rpos ©eo-craXoviKecs a. /3' # 

7rpos e E/?pac'ovs a • 7rpos Tc/xo0eov a. ft'* 7rpos Tcto^ a'* Vpos QiXyj- 

fAova a. 

II. 

CW. 39 (ita B. C. CW. 47. Mansi, 11. 1177. Cf. supr. CGscrami 

XJi Carthagi- 

pp. 390 seqq.) . nkhsb m. 

397 A D. 

Item placuit ut prseter Scripturas canonical nihil in ecclesia 
legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarura. Sunt autem 
Canonicse Scripturse hae 9 : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, 
Deuteronomium, Jesus Naue, Judicum, Ruth, Regnorum libri 
quatuor, Paralipomenon libri duo, Job, Psalterium Davidicum, 
\ Salomonis libri quinque, libri duodecim prophetarum, Jesaias, 



■ habetur in Capitular. A quisgran. c. 6 Bick. -f ovrus, 

xx, (Mansi, xin. App. 161, ed. Flor. 7 Bev. Ar. praem. ko.1. 

J 1767), hoc titulo prssposito: Be li- 8 E cod. Coll. SS. Trin. Cant. B. 

! bris Canonicis. SacerdotibiLS. Lectt. xiv. 44, sasc. xii. in quo ordo cano- 

varr. littera A notavi. num hie est: i. — xxxvii. xHx. xlvii. 

1 Ar. T7)s ir. Kal k. xlviii. {Placuit — ministri), xlviii. 

2 Ar. al. praam, rrjs. (Quibus— fin.) + xxxviii. Ac. Colla- 

3 Bick. al. tol bk rijs k. d. raOrct, tis Codd. Mus. Brit. (B) Cott. Cland. 
; ri]s Be k. 5. ravra. Ar. D. 9, saec. xi. ; (C) Beg. 9, B. xii. 



4 Bev. om. ovtus. At. om. e, ob. 9 Maijsi om. ha. 

I Cod. Cant. a. /3 r . Ar. 7. 



112 



484 



Catalogues of Boohs of the Bible 



APPENDIX 



Car. Apost. 



Jereinias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Esdrse libri 
duo, Machabseorum libri duo. Novi autem Testamenti, evan- 
geliorum libri quatuor, Actuum Apostolorum liber unus, Epi- 
stolse Pauli Apostoli 1 xiii., ejusdem ad Hebrseos una, Petri 
apostoli duse, Johannis 2 tres, Jacobi i., Judae i. 3 , Apocalypsis 
Johannis liber unus 4 . Hoc etiam fratri et consacerdoti 5 nostro 
Bonifacio, vel aliis earum partium Episcopis, pro confirmando 
isto canone innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus in ec- 
clesia legenda 6 . Liceat autem 7 legi passiones martyrum cum 
anniversarii eorum dies celebrantur 8 . 

III. 

Can. lxxvi. (al. lxxxv.) (Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. n. p. 
30) 9 : v Eoto) Se vplv iracn KXrjptKOts koll XaiKOis j3i(3\ia o*c/3acruia 
kglL dyia* rrjs /xlv 7raXaias SiaOrJKrjs Mcovcrcws 7revTe, Tevecris, 
*EfoSos, AtviTLKOV, 'Api#/xoi, koll Aevrepovo'uiov 'irjaov tov Nav?7 
ev twv KptTUJV €V tyjs e Pou0 €v f^acnXeiQv ricrcrapa* IlapaXci- 
7ro[xivu)v 9 rrjs (SifSXov tiov ^/xepwv, Svo' EcrSpa oVo* 'Ecr&Jp ev 
'Iov$eL0 hr MaKKa/3aiW Tpta* 'Iw/3 ev ^aX/xoi Ikoltov TTevTrjKOVTa* 
2oAo/xc3vos f3tj3X[a Tpta, irapoijxiai, CK/cX^o-iaoT^'s, aoyxa acr/xaT(ov 
7rpoct>rJTCU $€Kae$ m €^u)6ev Se vpuv irpovivTOptivOu jxavOdveiv vjjluji/ 

TOl)? VeOVS T7JV CTCXpLCLV TOV 7To\vIAOl6oVS 2etpa^. 7]fX€T€pa Sc, tovt- 

£o~ti Trjq KOLLvfjs hiaOrjKiqs, cwyye'Xia reWapa 10 , Mar&uou, Ma'p/cou, 
Aovkol, 'luydvvov UavXov €7riOToXai, SeKaTecrcrapcs* Herpov €7tioto- 
Xal Svo' 'Iaxxvvov rpets* 'IaKoj/^oi; /xia* 'louSa /xta 11, KXt^/xcvtos 
£7rt(TToXat 12 Svo, Kat at Siarayai -u/xii/ 13 rots liner kottois St' ifiov KXij- 

fJLWTOS hf OKT(i) /2l/2Xl0lS 7TpO(T7r€(j)U)Vr]fX€VaL, as ov xp?} SrjjxoeruveLV 

€7rt TrdvTUiV Sta ra cv avTats fxvejTiKd' koI al 7rpafeis ^//.aw iw 
aVoordXtoi'. 



1 c. B. C. M. Pauli ap. ep. 

2 M. + apostoli = B. C. 

3 M. ./tides apostoli una et Jac. 
una. 

4 M. ' Quidani vetustus codex 
sic habet : De confirmando isto ca- 
none transmarina ecclesia consula- 
tur.' 

5 B. coepiscopo. 

6 C. agenda vitiose. 

7 C. etiam. 



8 B. dies eel. eor. C. dies eor. celebr. 

9 Hie Catal. integer exstat in 
Codd. Syrr. (Mus. Brit.) 14,526, 
14,527, saec. vi. vel vii. ; non autern 
in MS. Arab. 7207. Dion. Exig. 
Canones tantum L. vertit. 

10 Syr. + quez antea memoravimus. 

11 'I. p.. om. cod. Bodl. ap. Bev. 
(TJeltzen.) 

13 Syr. eluee epp. meee dementis. 
13 Bunsen vfx<Zvl err. typ. 



during the first Eight Centuries. 485 

IV. 
Synopsis Sacr. Script. Ap. Chrys. Tom. vi. p. 314 ff. Ed. appendix. 
Bened. : ]§K07ros rcoV Atat^/ccoV ets, rcoV dv6pu>7ra)v r) Sto'pt%xrts.... 
fxrj tolvvv vofJLL^erm rts feVov etvat vojitOirov to 7raAatas toroptas 
$L7]y€Lcr6ai kcll vojaovs avaypacj>€LV 07rep yap l&yyu vo/xos tovto 
koll rj SojyrjCTLS tov fiiov rcoV ayt'cov. Ecrrt tolvvv Trjs 7ra\atas to 
fiev lo-ToptKov cos rj oKrare^xos (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, hu- 
meri, Deuteronomium, Josue, Judices, Ruth). ..Mer gkuvo (Vovff) 
at /JacrtAetat at Tecrcrapes.../xera Se ras /3acrtA.etas v EcrSpas . . . (3 1 6) 
. . .t^s ovv 7ra\atas ecrrt to pxv tcrroptKoV tovto Srj o 7rpoetp7]KafJL€v, 
to Se crvfJLJSovXevTLKov cos en T€ 7rapotju,tat koll rj tov Setpax 2oc/)ta 
Kat o 'EKKA.?7CTiacrr?}s Kat ra "Acxuara rcoV 'Aoyxarcov, ro Se irpocfrri- 
tlkov cos ot SeKaef Xeyco 7rpo<£^rat kcu'IPovO (?) /cat Aa/ui'S ... ecrrt 
8e /cat ttJs KaLvrjs /?t/3Ata, at eTTtcrroXat at SeKareVaapes IlauAoi;, 
I ra euayyeXta ra recrcrapa, Svo jaev rcoV fxaOrp-dov roi) Xp terror 'Ico- 
| dvvov /cat Mar0atoir Suo 8e Aovkol koll Map/coir coV o fxkv tov 
Ilerpov o Se tov UavXov yeyoVacrt {JLaOrjTaL. 61 /xei/ yap auroTrrat 
^crav yey€vrjfjL€VOL 9 kcu crvyyevofievou rco Xptcrrcp* ot Se 7rap €K€lv(dv 
ra e/cetVcov StaSefa/xevot ets erepous e^veyKav Kat ro rcoV 7rpa£ecoi/ 
Se j3l/3\lov, Kat airro Aov/ca tcrrop^cravros ra yevo/xeva* Kat rcoV 
Ka^oXtKcov eVtoroAat rpets. 

V. 

Zte partihus divincelegis 1 , Lib. 1. a 2- (Gallandi, xii. 79 tTrNTTirgj 
seqq.) Species [scripture]... au t historica est, aut prophetica, f p 55 tS. 
aut proverbialis, aut simpliciter docens. 

c. 3. Be historia... Discipulus. In quibus libris divina con- 
tin etur historia? Magister. In septenidecim. Gen. i. Exod. 
i. Levit. i. Num. i. Deuter. i. Jesu Nave i. Judicum i. 
Ruth. i. Regum secundum nos iv. secundum Hebrseos ii» 
Evangeliorum iv. secundum Matthseum, secundum Mar- 
cum, secundum Lucam, secundum Joannem, Actuum Apo- 

1 Ad Primasium Episcopum (e. gistros publicos, sicut apud nos in 

553 a.d.) Pre/. ... [vidi] quendam mundanis # studiis Grammatica et 

Paullum nomine, Persam genere, Rhetorica, ordine ac regulariter tra- 

qui in Syrorum schola in Nisibi urbe ditur. . .ejus . . . regulas quasdam . . .in 

est edoctus, ubi divina lex per ma- duos brevissimos libellos...collegi... 



486 Catalogues of Books of the Bible 

appendix stolorum i. D. ISTulli alii Libri ad divinam Historiam 
pertinent? M. Adjungunt plures : Paralipomenon ii. 
Tob. i. Esdrae ii. Judith i. Hester i. Maccab. ii. D. Quare 
hi libri non inter canonicas scripturas currunt ? M. Quo- 
niam apud Hebraeos quoque super hac differentia recipie- 
bantur, sicut Hieronymus caeterique testantur 

c. 4. DeProphetia... D. In quibus libris prophetia suscipitur? 
M. In septemdecim. Psalmorum cl. lib. i. Osee lib. i. 
Esaiae lib. i. Joel lib. i. Amos lib. i. Abdiae lib. i. Jonae lib. i. 
Miehaeae lib. i. Nahum. lib. i. Sophoniae lib. i. Habacuc lib i. 
Jereiniae lib. i. Ezechiel lib. i. Daniel lib. i. Aggaei lib. i. 
Zachariae lib. i. Malachite lib. i. Caeterum de Joannis 
Apocalypsi apud orientales admodum dubitatur 

c. 5. De proverbiis D. In quibus haec [proverbialis species] 

libris accipitur % J/. In duobus : Salomonis Proverbiorum 
lib. i. et Jesu filii Sirach lib. i. D. Nullus alius liber 
huic speciei subditur? M. Adjungunt quidam librum qui 
vocatur Sapientiae et Cantica Canticorum 

c. 6. De simplici doctrina... D. Qui libri ad simplicem doc- 
trinam pertinent ? M. Canonici sexdecim ; id est * Eccles. 
lib. i. et Epist. Pauli Apostoli ad Pom. i. ad Corinth, ii. 
ad Gal. i. ad Ephes. i. ad Philip, i. ad Coloss. i. ad Thessal. 
ii. ad Timoth. ii. ad Titum i. ad Philem. i. ad Hebr. i.; 
beati Petri ad gentes i. ; et beati Joannis prima. D. Nulli 
alii libri ad simplicem doctrinam pertinent? M. Adjun- 
gunt quamplurimi quinque alias quae Apostolorum Canonicae 
imncupantur ; id est : Jacobi i. Petri secundam, Judae 
unam, Johannis duas 

c. 7. De aactoritate Scrijrturarum. D. Quomodo divinorum 
libroruin consideratur auctoritas 1 M. Quia quidam per- 
fects auctoritatis sunt, quidam mediae, quidam nullius. D. 
Qui sunt perfects auctoritatis ? M. Quos canonicos in 
singulis speciebus absolute numeravimus. D. Qui mediae 1 
M. Quos adjungi a pluribus diximus. D. Qui nullius 
auctoritatis sunt ? M. Eeliqui omnes. D. In omnibus 



during the first Eight Centuries. 487 

speciebus hse differentiae inveniuntur ? M. In historia et appendix 
simplici doctrina 1 onines ; namque in prophetia medise 
auctoritatis libri non prseter Apocalypsim reperiuntur; neque 
in proverbiali specie omnino tcessata. 

VI. 

De fide Orthodoxy IV. 17 2 : Ivrlov Se cos ctKocri kcu Svo Joannes 
/3t/3Xot curt t^s TraXatas hiaOrfKiqs Kara ra crrot^eta T77S e E/3pa't'Sos t 750 a.d. 

*}>Q)VYJS CtKOCTt SvO jdp (TTOiytia €)(OVO~lV ££ wv 7t£vt€ §l7t\ovvtoli COS 

yiveaOai aura cikocti €7rra* 8t7rXo7;v yap cort to Xac/> Kat to Mc/z, 
Kat to Now koll to lie Kat to SaSt* Sto Kat at /?t'/3Xot Kara rovrov 
rov rpoirov ct/coo-t Svo fxev dpiQ fxovvrai ct/coct €7TTa Se evptorKovTaL 
8ta to 7rivT€ i£ avrmv SiirXovaOai. ^vvdirTCTaL yap e Poi)0 Tots 
KptTats Kat dpidpLtiTai nap* e E/?patots fita /3l/3\os* 77 Trpdrrj /cat 77 
8evT€pa tcov BatrtXctooV p,ta /3tj3kos' y Trptorq Kat 77 fevripa tcoV 
Hapa\eL7rofJL€Vtov pita /?t/3Xos* 77 Trpayn? Kat 77 Seirrepa tou 'Eo~8pa 
/xta /3t/3Xos* ot/rcos ow o~uyK€tvTat at (3lJ3\ol eV Trcj/TaTcv^ots T€- 
Tpaac Kat [JL€vov<jw aXXai $vo cos ctvat Tas ivStaOerovs fiifiXovs 
outgos* 7revT€ vofxiicds, Tiveo-tv, *E£oSov, AevtriKov, 'Aptfytot (?), 
AzvTtpovofALov. Avrrj irpwrrj 7revTaT€irj(os 77 Kat vopLoOeata. Etra 
aAAty 7rci/TaT€V^os Ta KaXoi;p,eva Ppa</>€ta 7rapa Ttcrt Se e Aytoypac/>a 
aTtva eoTti> outcos* 'I^crous o tot; Navfj, KptTat jitem ttJs 'Povfl, 
BacrtXetcoV 7rp<oT77 jut€Ta T77S Seirrepas /3l/3\os /xta, 7; rpCrr} fxeTa ttJs 
TCTapTTjs j3l(3\os fxia Kat at Suo tcoV lTapaXetTro/xeVcov )3i/3Xos ix/a. 
Ai!t77 Setrrepa 7r€VTarev;(os. Tpu-77 TrcvTctTev^os at crrt^'pets, /8t/3Xos 
tou Ico/5, to ^aXT^ptov, Hapoijxtai So\o/xcovtos, 'EKKX^crtaoTT^s tou 
avTOv, Ta "AoyxaTa tcoV AoyxaVcoi/ toi? avTOv. TerdpTrj 7T€VTaT€V^os 
77 7rpo<jir]rtK7], to 8a)S€Ka7rpoc/)77TOV f3t/3\os /xta, 'Hcratas, 'Iepe/xtas, 
'lel^rjKnjXj AavitjX, ctTa tou 'Eo~Spa at 8vo €ts /xtav avvaTrTo/Atvai 
j8t)8Xov , Kat 77 'Etr^p. 'H 8e IIavap€TOS, TOVTCCTTtv 77 2oc/>ta toC 
SoXo/xcovtos Kat 77 Soc/>ta tov '^croi;, 77V o 7raTrjp fxlv tov Stpa^ 
i££9€TQ e E/?patcTTl e EXX77vtcTTt 8e yjpfjL^vevcrev 6 tovtov pXv ?yyovos 

1 G-allandii pravam interpunctio- dionis (c. it 80 A.D.), civis Pisani, 
nem correxi: doctrina: omnes nam- ex codd. Mus. Brit. Reg. 6, B, xii. 
«««■•• (a); 5, B, x. (p); add. 15,407 (7). 

2 Ex edit. Lequien, Paris, 1712; 3 K. 2428 addit /cat 77 'Iov8i$ 
collata vers. Lat. Joannis Burgun- (Leq.). 



488 Catalogues of Boohs of the Bible 

APPENDIX (^ c/cyoVOs) 'ItJCTOVS TOV SI StpCt^ VIOS" ivdpZTOL fltV KCU KdXai ClX/V 
OVK dpiOfJLOVVTai OV$€ €K6tVTO Iv TTf Kl/3cDT<3. 

Trjs 81 vias SiaOt] ky)<s euayyiXia 1 riacrapa' to 2 Kara Mar^atov, 
to Kara MdpKOV, to Kara AovKav 3 , to Kara 'Icoavv^v. Ilpafcis twv 
dycwv aVooToXaH/ Sia KovKa rov cvayy eXicrTov. JZaOoXiKal 4 Ztti- 
otoXgu €7TTa* 'IaKo5/3ov /xta, II irpov 5 8vo, 'iwaVvov tocis, 'lovSa 
/ua. IlavXov aVooroXov €7rio"ToXa! 6 Se/caTecrcrapcs. 'AttokcxXvi^is 7 
'ItoaWoi; cvayyeXiorov. Kavovcs T(3v aytW a7rooToXcov 8 Sia KXty- 

VII. 

ebed jesu. Ca£a£ Z$r. oww. Ucclesiasticorum (Assemani, i?i6Z. Or. in. 

t 1318 A.D. X 

pp. 3 seqq.) 

Procemium. Virtute auxilii tui Deus, 

Et precibus omnis justi insignis, 
Ac matris celeberrinise, 
Scribere aggredior Carmen admirabile : 
In quo Libros Divinos, 

Et omnes Compositiones Ecclesiasticas, 
Omnium priorum et posteriorum 
Proponam Lectoribus. 
Nomen Scriptorum commemorabo, 
Et quaenam scripsere, et qua ratione, 
In Deo autem confidens, 
En a Moyse ioitium duco. 

Cap. i. Lex quinque Libri, 

Genesis, Liber Exodi, 
Liber Sacerdotum, Numeri, 
Et Liber Deuteronomii. 
Dein Liber Josue filii Nun, 
Post tunc Liber Judicum, 



1 Evangelistce 7. 7 Apoclialypm 7. 

2 quod sec. M. &c. /?. 7. 8 R. -2428 koL iina-roXal dtio dia. 

3 to k. A. = /3. KX^eiros, sed interpolatum varie 

4 Canonicce a. Catholicce /3. 7. huncce codicem esse monuimus 

5 + tertius punctis suppos. 7. (Leq.). 

6 = epistolce 7. sed man. sec. add. 



during the first Eight Centuries. 



489 



Cap. 



11. 



Et Samuel et Liber Pegum 

Et Liber Dabarjamin et Ruth. 
Et Psalmi David Regis : 

Et Proverbia Salomonis et Cohelet : 

Et Sirah Shin et Bar-Sira r 

Et Sapientia Magna, et Job. 
Isaias, Hosee, Joel, 

Amos, Abdias, Jonas, 

Michseas, Nahum, Habacuc, 

Soplionias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, 
Malacliias, et Hieremias, 

Ezechiel, et Daniel : 

Judith, Esther, Susanna, 

Esdras, et Daniel minor. 
Epistola Baruch : et liber 

Traditionis Seniorum. 

Josephi 1 autem scribse exstant 

Proverbia 2 , et Historia filiorum Samonae 3 , 
Liber etiam Macabaeorum 4 , 

Et Historia Herodis Regis 

Et liber postreraae desolationis 

Hierosolymas per Titum. 
Et liber Asiathse uxoris 

Josephi justi filii Jacob: 

Et liber Tobias et Tobith 

Jnstorum Israelitarum. 

Nunc absoluto Yeteri 

Aggrediamur jam Novum Testamentum: 
Cujus caput est Matthseus, qui Hebraice 
In Palaestina scripsit. 



APPENDIX 
D. 



1 De Flavio Josepho... hie loqui- 
tur Solensis, etsi eum modo cum 
iEsopo Phryge, modo cum Josepho 
Gorionide per errorem confundat, ut 
ex sequentibus palam fit. (Assem.) 

2 Fabulas iEsopicas intelligit, 
quas Orientales recentiores Syri 
Arabesque Josepho Hebrseo perpe- 



ram adscribunt: utrumque enim vo- 
cant »£0O °\ \ CDQ-t Iosipum, hoc 
est Josephum. (Assem.) 

3 i. e. Lib. iv. Maccab. 

4 De opere quod sub nomine Jo- 
sephi Gov iV/nYZw...publicatum fuit... 
loquitur, (Assem.) Equidem de 
Librr. Mace. i. ii. interpreter. 



490 



Catalogues of Books of the Bible 



APPENDIX 



Post hunc Marcus, qui Poniane 

Loquutus est in celeberrima Poma : 
Et Lucas, qui Alexandria 
Greece dixit scripsitque : 

Et Joannes, qui Ephesi 

Grseco sermone exaravit Evangelium. 
Actus quoque Apostolorum, 
Quos Lucas Theophilo inscripsit. 

Tres etiam Epistolse quae inscribuntur 
Apostolis in omni codice et lingua, 
Jacobo scilicet et Petro et Joanni; 
Et Catholicse nuncupantur. 

Apostoli autem Pauli magni 
Epistolae quatuordecim l 

Cap. iii. Evangelium, quod compilavit 
Yir Alexandria us 
Ammonius qui et Tatianus, 
Illudque Diatessaron appenavit. 

Cap. iv. Libri quoque quorum Auctores sunt 
Discipuli Apostolorum. 
Liber Dionysii 
Philosophi cselestis. 

Cap. v. Et Clementis unius ex septuaginta 



Melito, 
Ep. Sard. 
c, 180 a.l>. ; 



YIIL 

Fragm. ap. Euseb. H. E. iv. 26. Mca/tcdv 'Ovrjo-i/jua tw 
dSeX</)(i) ^atpeiv. cttciSt) . . . kcu fJiaOetv rrjv t<3v iraXaiOtv fSt/SXtiov 
ZfiovXrfOrjs aKpi($€iav iroaa rov dpcBfxov, kcu oiroia rrjv ra^iv etei/ 
c(j7rov8acra to tolovto irpd^ai. . .dveXOwv ovv cts rrjv dvaroXrjv kcu 
ews rov tottov yevofievos ev6a €Kr]pv^0r] /cat lirpdyOr) koli a/cpt^ws 
fiaOuv ra r^5 7raAaias Sta6i]Kr}^ /3tj3Xta virord^a^ hrefxxpd vol, ojv 
icrrl ra ovofxara. Mwiio-ecos Trkvrv Tivecns, "E^oSos. Api0fjLoi, 
AevLTiKov, AevTepovofXiov 'Irjcrovs NarnrJ* K/htcu, 'TovO- BacrtXctw^ 
recro-apa* UapaXenroixiv^v 8vo* tyaXfjuZv Aa/^i'S* SoAo/xwvos Hap- 



Ejp. ad Hebrceos locam ultimum obtinet. 



during the first Eight Centuries. 491 

ot/ztat r) kolL 2o<£i'a* EKKXTicrtacrrTys* acr/xa aor/jtara)i/" Igj/?. 7rpo- APPENDIX 
cf>rjT(j)u, 'H<ratov, 'Icpt/xtou, tw ScoSeKa €V p,oro/3t/3Xa) 5 Aai/t?;/\, 'Ic^c- 
KttfAj *E(j8pas. €^ tov Kat ras eKXoyas eiroLr)crdiJL7]v . . . 

IX. 

IT. .#. in. 25. Cf. supr. pp. 366 seqq. ^TZd' 



Catech. rv. 33 (22 ed. Mill.) Trept twv Ozlwv ypa<£wi/. ^ TRr ^F 3 ' , 
^tXoxta^tos e7rtyvco#t irapd rrjs eKKX^crta? 7rotat fiev ctcrtv at r^s 34 ? n fi 

TraXatas StaQyJKrjs /3l/3Xol 9 7rotat Se T75 Kauvrjs 7roXi; crov $povi- 

/xorrcpot Tycrav ot AttocttoXoi Kat ol dpyaloi €7rtcrK07rot, 61 ttJs eK- 
kXtjo-lols Trpodraraij 61 tolvtols irapahovrev crv ovv tIkvov rrjs eK- 
kXyjo-lols fxy 7rapa^apaTT€ tovs Beo-fxovs. Kat rrjs fxlv TraXatas Sta- 
6rjKrj<s cos eiprjTai ras €tKO<Tt 8vo fxeXira /3ij3Xovs, as et </>tXo/xa#?7s 
ruy^avet? €/xou Xeyovros ovop.acrrt jJL€fivrjo-8at cr7rov8ao~ov. Tov 
vofJiov uev yap ctcrtv at Mcocrecas Trparrat tt£vt€ J3l/3Xol, Ttvecns, 
"E£o8os, AcvtrtKoV, 'Apt#/xot, Acirrcpoi/o/xtov. 'E^s 8e 'I^croOs t>tos 
^savrj, kolI to tujv Kptrtov p,era ttJs '¥ov6 /3t/3Xiov e/3$ojjLOv dpiO- 
jjLOVfJLevov. Twv Sk \onr<s>v toroptKtov /3t/3XtW 77 7rp(j)Trj Kat 77 Seu- 
repa 7W BacrtXctcov /x,ta 7rap' e E/3patots ccrrt /Jt'/^Xos, xua 8e /cat 77 
Tpcrrj Kat 77 rerapTYj. 'O/zotoos 8e 7rap airrots Kat 7W IlapaXet- 
7rop.eva)V 77 7rpcor>7 Kat 77 Sevrepa /xta rvy^avct /3t/3Xos, Kat rou 
"Ea8pa 77 irpdrrj Kat 77 Setrrepa p,ta XcXdytcrrat* 8a>8eKar77 /3t'/3Xos 
77 'Eo*#?7p. Kat ra /xev toroptKa ravTa. Ta 8e oTi\iqpd rvy\dv€L 
7revT€j 'lw/3, Kat /8t/3Xos ^aX/xwv Kat IIapotp,tat, Kat ^KK\y]cnao'T7]s, 
Kat ^Acr/xa acr/xaro)]/ CTTTaKatSeKarov /3i/3Xlov. *E7rt 8e roirrots ra 

7TpOCJ>rjTLKd 7T€VT€' T(i)l> SwScKa 7TpO(f)r)T<JL>V fJLLCL /3lJ3\oS KOL H(7atOV 

/xta Kat 'Iepc/xtou yutta jLtcra Bapov^ Kat Qprjvwv Kat E7rtoroX?;s, 
ctra 'Ie^CKtTyX Kat 77 to£5 AavtT^X, elKocrr^ScvTepa /SifiXos rrjq 7raXatas 
SLa6r}Kr)s* rrj<z 8c Kouvrjs SiaO^Kr}^ Ta reacrapa cuayyeXta* ra 8e 
Xot7ra ij/€v$€7Tiypa<t>a Kat fi\a/3epd rvyxdver typaxf/av kol Mavt^atot 
KaTa ©Wjitav crayycXtov, OTrcp, wcr7rcp eiJwSta 777s cvayycXtK^? 7rpocr- 
(DWfALOLS, 8ta<£0€tp€t ras \jrv)(ds twv aTrXo-ucrrepcov. Sc^ov 8e Kat 
ras Trpafets twv ScuSeKa a7rocrTOy\a)V Trpos roiirots 8e Kat Tas C7rra 
'IaKOj/Jou Kat Ilerpoi;, 'IcoaVvoi; Kat 'Iov8a 3 Ka#oXtKas €7rtcrroXas* 



492 Catalogues of BooJcs of the Bible 

APPENDIX C7rwr<£pay«7/za 8e tcov 7ravT0)V Kat fiaOrjTiov to rcXcvrato^, Tas 
ILavXov ScKaTecrcrapas en-to-ToXaV rd Se Xowra iravra e£<D k€l<t6(d 
iv SevTepa). /cat oca p-ev ev eKKX^crtats /at; aVaytvaxrKCTat, Toura 
jU/^Se /cara cra-UToV aVaytVoaoTce Ka#a$s ^Kovcras 

XL 

Epiphaitiijs, Hceresis VIII. 6. v Ectyov Se outoc ot 'IovSatot aypt t>5s oVo 

t c. 403 a.d. Ba/2uXd>i/os atx/xaXcocrtas €7ravo8ov /3t/?Xot;s re kol 7rpoc/>^ras rov- 

TOl>S Kat 7TpO(f>r]T(Jt)V fiifiXoVS TaVTOLS' 7TpWTr]V flkv TeV€<TLV, StvTepav 

Se E£o$ov. ..Acvltlkov. . .'Apt#/xoa$s. . . AtvTtpovofMov. . ./3l/3Xov 'Irjcrov 
rov ~Nolvyj...tiqv HLpiT&v . . .rfjs c Pov0...tot; 'Iw/3...to ^aXr^ptov... 
UapoLfjLLas ^oXofxwvros . . .'E/cKX^cnaoTT^/. . .to 'A(T/x,a T(t>i> acr/xara)v. . . 
7rpo)Trjv Ba<riX€i<m/...S€t;T€0ai/ BacrtX€tG>v...Tpt : n7i> BacrtX€ta>i/...T€- 
Taprrjv BactXctan'. . .7rp(0T7jv UapaXcLirofiivoiv. ..Sevrepav IlapaXci7ro- 
fi€V(DV. . .to Ao)8€Ka7rpoc/)^TOT/. . .'Hoxuav. . .'Icpc/uav /x€Ta tgji/ ®pr)viav 
koll E7rto"ToXa)v avTov T€ Kat tov Bapou^* . .'Ic^CKt^X. . .AavnyX. . .to 

TrpWTO^ filfiXiOV TOV V Eo"8pa...TO ScUT€pOl> /3i/3XiOV...TO fii/SXlOV 

Ko-Oijp' koll avrai elcriv at €tKocrt€7TTa fiifiXoi at e/c #€oi; SoOeicrcu 
Tots 'IouSatots, ctKocrtSuo 8e ojs ra 7rap' avTots o-rot^cta rwv e E/?pat- 
K(3i/ ypa/x/xarwv apt^/xov/xcvat Sta to St7rXouo"#at Se/ca /Jt'/JXous cts 
7T€i/TC X€yop,ei'as...€t0't 8e Kat aXXat Svo /3lJ3Xol 7rap avrots cv ap,- 
<^)tXe/CTO) 07 2oc/>ta tou 2tpa^ /cat ?; tov SoXo/xwi/tos, x^P^ a XXa)i/ 

TWO)]/ /3l/3Xi(i)V iva7TOKpV<f>U)V. 

Hceresis lxxvi. 5. Ed. Colon. 1682. Et yap 07s ef aytov 
TrvevfJLCLTOS yey evvr]p.£vo<z Kat 7rpocj>7]Tai<s Kat aVoo-ToXots fjLejxaOrjTev- 
//cvos, cSct 0"e StcX^cWa aV dpxys ycveo-ccos Kooy/,oi> a^pt tcui/ At- 
o-077p ^poi/cov ev ctKocrt Kat €7TTa /3t'/3Xots 7raXatas Sta^K^s, ukocti 
8vo dpi6fJLovfjL€Vot<s, TeTTapcrL SI aytots cvayyeXtots, Kat €i/ Tecrarap- 
atKatScKa c7rtOToXats tov aytov a7roo"ToXov IlavXov, Kat iv Tats 
7rpo toutcov, Kat <tvv Tats €1/ Tots avT(Zv xpovots Ilpafeo-t twi/ a7ro- 
(TToXuiv, Ka^oXtKats c7rto"ToXats Ia.K(x)f3ov Kat Ilerpov Kat 'Icoavvov 
Kat IovSa, Kat iv rfj rov 'Icoavvov 'A7roKaXi;i/rct, €i/ tc Tats 2oc/)tats, 
2oXojaa>VTos tc c/>^jU.t Kat i;tov Stpa^, Kat 7racrats a7rXcjs ypacpats 
#etats 

i)e Mens, et Pond. 4. Ovtws yovi/ crvyKctvTat at /3cfiXoi iv 
7revTaTtvxoLS rirapa-i Kat fiivovcnv aXXat 8uo vaTcpovcat, o5s ctvat 



during the first Eight Centuries. 493 

TCIS €V$La6eT0VS j3l/3\0VS OVTW 7T€VT€ fJLZV VOfJLLKcis . . ,irlvT€ OTl^'pctS APPENDIX 

. . . clra dXXrj irtVTaTevyos rd KaXou/xeva ypac/>€ia ?rapa tlctl Se ay to- 
ypa<£a XeydfJieva, artva ecrrtv ovroys, 'Ir^crov rou Nai^ filfiXos, 
KpiTuv fJL€Toi rrjs 'VovO, Uapa\€L7roix€vu)V irpurq p.€Ta rfjs Sevrcpas, 
BacuXetwj/ 7rpojrr] /xera rfjs Tera'pTTis. avrrj rpiTT} 7r€vraT€V)(os. 
aWr] 7T€vraT€u^os to Au)8€Ka7rp6(f>rp-ov, 'Hcratas, 'lepe/xtas, Ic^€- 
/a^'X, Aavi^'X. Kal avTTy 77 7Tpo^>yjTiKrq 7r€vraT ein(os. e/x€ivav 8e 
aXXat Svo atrtves cicrt toi; *EcrSpa tua /cat avr^ Xoyi£ofJLanr] kolI 
dXXr] fiifiXos rj TTJS 'Ecrc^p KaXeirai. e7rXrjp(jj6rjo~av ovv at ctKOcrtSvo 
(StjSXoi Kara tov dpiOfxov twv etKOcrtSvo CTTOt^etW 7rap E/3patots. 
at yap (ttl^P^S Svo J3lJ3Xol rj r€ tov 2oXo/xu)vtos 77 IIavap€ros 
Xeyofjievrj, koll r] tov 'Irjcrov tov vlov ^Lpd\ hcyovav Se too; 'Itictou 
tov kcu ttjv 2oc/>tav 'E/Jpatcrrt ypdij/avTOS, rjv 6 acyopos auroi; I77- 
crous €pixr]vevo-as 'EXXTivtort eypai^e, /cat aurat xp^'crt/xot p,ev etcrt 
/cat coc/>eXtAtot aXX' €ts apt#/xov prjrwv ovk apt#/xoiVrat, Sto S77 €J> t<3 
'ApoV [ovk] dv€Ti$7]0-av, tovtccttlv Iv Trj'Trjs Sta07?/ais /a/3arra5. 

XII. 

Tei^ecrtg koctiaov, Indix 

E£oOOS AtyVTTTOf, 
AtVLTLKOV, 
'ApiOfJLOL, 

AtvTepovofJLiov, 
'Irjo-ovs Nav?J, 
Kptrat, 
*Pow0. 

o/xou /?t/?Xta 77 . 
BacrtXctojv a', 
BacrtXettoi/ (¥, 
BacrtXetoov y', 
Ba<xtXeta>v S', 
IlapaXetTTOttevaJV a', 
IlapaXetTro/xevcuv /?'. 

o/xoi) /3i(3Xia r'" 
Jlpocj>rJTaL tr', 

Clarji a 

'Hcratas iy'. 



494 Catalogues of Boohs of the Bible 

appendix 'Iepe/xias iS' (add. Baruch, Lament Epist.) 

AavufX it (cum additamentis), 

'EcrOtjp (cuhi additamentis), 

Tw(3lt, 

'IovSzlO, 

*Eo-Spas a lepevs (i Esdras), 

v Eo-Spas ft Upevs (Esdras Canonicus, Neemias), 

M.aKKa/3ato)v Xoyos a', 

MaKKa/3ato)V Xoyos (S', 

~M.aKKaj3aia)V Xoyos y', 

MaKKa/3atW Xoyos 8', 

Sl'aX'nfpioi' /xct' aSSur, 

Hapoi/xuu, 
'EK/cXTyo-tao-TT^s, 
*A(rfJLaTa ao-fAciToiv, 
2o<£ia 77 Ilai/apcTOS, 
2o</>ia 'I770-OV -utov Stpa^. 

e H Kaiv?) Ata6y]Krj. 

EvayycXta 8'. 
Kara Marflcuov, 
Kara MdpKov, 
Kara Aou/cai/, 
Kara 'ludvvrjv, 
lipomas a7roo-ToXa)T/, 
Ka^oXtfcat £, 
c7rto"ToXat IlavXov 18, 
cnroKaXvi/as 'lcoavvov, 
KX?;/x£vtos IttkjtoXt} a, 

KX?7/X€VTOS €7Tt0-T0X7; /3 , 

d/xov f3t/3\ia 

^aXjuot SoXo/xcGvtos «/• 



during the first Eight Centuries. 495 

XIII. APPENDIX 

Ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 25. Ovk dyvorjTiov 8' etvai ras evSia- Origenes. 
vrjKovs j3i/3Xovs, cos e E/?paiot 7rapaSiSoacrii/, Svo Kal et/cocr^ ocros o 
apLUfAos tcov 7rap' a-Jrois crrot^etW €OTU'...€ictI Se ai et/cocrt Sv'o 
J3l/3Xol kolO* E/3pa/oi;? afSe* r Trap rjplv TeVccrts €7nyeypa/xp.eV?7... 
*E£oSos. . . AewrcKov . . . 'ApiOfAol . . . Aeureporo'/xiov . . . 'I^crovs ~Savrj. . . 
Kptrat, e Pou#...Bacn,XeicoV TrpcoTT? Seirepa...Baorj,XeicoV Tpn-77 T€- 
ToipTr]...llapa\ci7rojJi€V(xiv irpujTr) S€urepa...*EcrSpas 7rpcoros /cat Seu- 
repos. . .Bi/3Xos i^aXp,cuV. . . SoXo/xcovros Ilapoi/xiat,. . .'EK/cX^crtacrT^s. . . 
^Acrjxa ao7xdV(jov...'HoWas...'Iep€/xias crw (dprjvois kolI 'EttiotoXtJ . . . 
Aavt7yA...'l€^cKt7fX...'Ioo/3... , EcT^ryp... v E^a) Se tovtcoi/ earl ra MaK- 
KajBdiKoi 

Cf. supra pp. 312 ff. 

XIY. 

Ex Epist. Fest. xxxix. Ap. Theodorum Balsamonem in athanasius, 

Ev Alex. "•26. 

Scholiis in Canones 1 : T. 1. 767. Ed. Bened. Par. 1777. Me'X- 1373. 
Xcoi> Se tovtcoi/ [sc. tcoV 0eiW ypa<£coV] fJLvrj(xov€vetv xP y l cro f JLaL ^pos 
(ruoTacra> rtys ifiavrov roX/xTys rco roVco tou cvayyeXioToi; AorKa, 
XeycovKalavros, 'E7T€ 187777 cp rives kire\e.iprj(Tav dvard^acrOai 
iavTois id Xeyo'/xeva aVoKpuc^a kcll eVi/ufai ravra tt) 6eo7rv€i;crr(t) 
ypoi^V Kepi ?)s €7rXrjcj>op7]6r]fJi€v, kolOws 7rapiSocrav tois 
iraTpaciv ol an dpyrjs avTonrai Kal virrfpiTai yevofitvoi 
tov Xoyov, eSo£c KapLol irporpairevTi napd yvrjcricov aSeX(£coV Kal 
/xaOovTt avco^ev ££rjs kKOicrOai rd Kavovi^o/xeva Kal napaSoOevra, 
7Ti(TT€v6evTa T€ 0eia €ivai fiifiXta, Iva €Ka<TTOS, et [lev Tjirar-qOy], 
Karayvco tcoV 7r\av7/cravTa)i/, o Se KaOapos Siap,eu>as X a WU ^Xii/ 
VTTOjXLfjivrjcTKO/xevo^ Ictti TOLVW rrjs ttev 7raXaias hia6rjK7]<; /3i/3Xia 
rco api#/xco Ta navra ct/cocrtSuo* rocrauTa yap cos rjKOVcra Kal ra cttoi- 
X^ a tv ^up 'E/Jpaiois elvat TrapaSeSorar T77 Se rafei Kal ra) 0V0- 
/Ltart ecrw eKaoTOV ourcos* irp&TOV Tevccrts, c?ra v Ef oSos, cTra Aeut- 
tlkov, Kal fxerd tovto 'Apt^ccot, Kal Xoi7roV to Acirrepovo/^toi/. 

1 Eadem epistola exstat in Vers. agendse sunt : The Festal Letters of 

Syr. Mus. Brit., (Cod. 12,168. saec. Athanasius, translated from the Sy- 

vii. v. viii.), quam nuper Anglice viae by the Rev. ff. Burgess, Ph. D. 

reddidit vir reverendus, cui mini pro p. 137. 
singular! ejus humanitate gratiaa 



496 



Catalogues of Boohs of the Bible 



APPENDIX 'Efj^S §€ TOVTOLS icTTLV 'irjCTOVS 6 TOV ~Navfj KOI KpLTOLL, KCU [JiCTOi TOVTO 

rj 'FovO, Kal 7T(xXlv ££fjs Bao-tXetwv ricrcrapa /3t/3Xta...p,€Ta Se raOra 
napaX€t7ro/xeVa)v a :;at j3'...etTa *E<rSpas a Kal /J\..ju,€Ta 8c ravra 
ficfiXos tyaXfJiwv Kal c^Js Ilapot/u'at, ctra 'EKKX^crtacm;? Kat *Aoy/,a 
acr//,aTa)V* Trpog Tovrots cart Kat Iw/3 Kal Xot7roV UpocjyrJTai, 01 filv 
2a>§€fca cis €V /3t/3Xtoi/ dpiOfAovfAevor ctra Hcratas 'lcp£//.tas Kat crvv 
ai5r<3 Bapoux ®prjvoi 'EttlcttoXt], Kal [JLtT avTov 'ic&KtrjX Kal 
AavirjX* d^pi tovtwv ra ttJs 7raXatas Sia&rjKrjs toTarat. ra Se Trjs 
Kawrjs ovk oKvrjTeov ehreiv* cort yap ravra' EijayyeXta ricrcrapa' 
Kara M.aT0aiov, Kara "MapKOV, Kara Aov/caV, Kara 'Iwdvvrjv, Etra 
^txera rairra Ilpafets 'AttootoXcov, Kat cVtoroXat KaOoXtKal 1 koXov- 
fxevai tc3v a7rocrToXa)V €7rra oura)?' 9 IaK(&j3ov fxkv a\ TLirpov Se /3', 
ctra 'IwaVvov y, Kal perd ravrag 'IovSa a'. TIpos rovrots IlauXov 
aVocrroXou elcrlv eVtcrroXat ScKarccnTapc?, t>} rafet ypac^o/xcvat 2 

ovrois 3 /cat 7raXtv 'ludvvov a7TOKaXvi//'ts* ravra irqyal tov crutTYj- 

piov, (Sore tov Sit//wra ifJL(f>op€L(rOaL tcov eV tovTols XoytW* iv rov- 
rots fjiovoLS to rrjs evcrefizias StSacrKaXctoi/ cuayyeXtfcrat. M^Sets 
tovtols €7rt^8aXXcra), fxrjSe tovtu>v ac/>atp€tcr0co rt...aXX' cveKct yc 
7rXetovos aKpt/?ctas 7rpoo"Ti6rjfXL Srj tovto ypdcfxDV avayKatcos ws ore 
cort Kat crepa (3t/3Xta tovtiov eijwOev ov Kavovi^ofxeva jxev T€TU7ra>- 
fiiva 8c 7rapa tw TraTepwv dvayivdcTKtcrOai rots aprt irpocrepypixi- 
vols Kal /JcruXo/xeVots Kanq^ucrOat tov ttjs €wc/3ctas Xoyov, 2oc/>ia 
ZSoXo/xdWo? Kat %o<f*ia %ipd^ Kal 'Ecr^p Kat 'Iox;St0 Kat Ta)/3tas 
Kat AtSa^ KaXovfxevrj twv a7rocrroXa)v Kat o IIoifJLrjv. Kat o/xws, 
dya7rrjTOL, KaKeti/wi/ Kavovt^ofiiviov Kal tovtwv dvayiva)crKOfJLevu)V ov- 
Safjiov Twv a7roKpv<f)(DV jAvrffxr], dXXd atpertKwv ecrrti/ lirivoia ypa- 
\J/6vt(dv pXv ot€ OiXovcriv avTa yapi^ofxivoiv Se Kat irpocrTiOivTiov 
avrots ^povous ?v* ojs 7raXata 7rpocr<pipovT€S irpocfracrw lyuicriv aira- 
rav €K tovtov tot)s aKcpatovs. 



Gefgoritjs 
Kazianzenus, 

t 391 A.D. 



XV. 

Ctwm. XII. 31 (Ed. Benedict. Par. 1840). 7rcpt twi/ yvrjcrluv 
/3t/3XtW t^s 6€07n/€vcrTOV ypacjtrjs. 

o<f>pa Se /xt) {jtivrjcrL voov kXItttoio fiifiXoicn 



1 Syr. om. Ka6o\ucat, 

2 Syr. om. ypa.<pbiJ.evai. 



3 Idem est ordo qui in editt. 
vulgg. 



during the first Fight Centuries. 497 

(7roX\at yap reXiOovcn Trapiyypairroi KdKOTrjTes) APPENDIX 

Se^vixro tovtov ifxeio rov eyKpirov, <3 <£iX', dpiOfAOV* 
'loTOpucal jjl€V eacrt (3l(3Xol SvoKatSeKa 7raVac 

ttJs dp^atorlprj^ 'E/Jpai/oJs <rocj>ir]<;. 
HpiDTLCTrj TeVecris €lt *Efo8o9, Azvltikov tc 



C H 3' ivdrrj SeKarrj re fitfiXoi Ilpa^eis /JacrtXrfwv 

kol IIapaXet7ro/X€i/at. Ecr^arov EcrSpav e^€ts. 
at Se (TTt)(r]pai irivre, (hv irpwros y 'loo/?. 
?7r€6Ta Aam8* eiTa rpets 2oXo/xeovTiat 
"E/c/cX^o-tacrT^^Acr/xa /cat, Ilapot/xtat. 
#cat 7T€v6' o/>totcos Tri/eiJ/xaros 7rpocf>r)TiKov' 



'Ap^ata? p,€i/ WrjKd Sua) Kat €iko<tc fiifiXovs 
rots T(3y c E/?paiW ypa/x/xao-tv aVntferovs. 
HSry o dpiOfxei kcu viov jjLvcrrrjpLOv. 
Mar^atos />t€i> eypaxf/ev e E/?patot§ Oavfxara XpiOTOu 

Map/cos 8' 'iraXir], Aovkcls 'A^aiiaSt. 
LEaVi 8' 'icoavvT/g Krjpv£ pLeyas, ovpavo<fioc7r]s l . 
"E7T€iTa Ilpa^ets twv crocj>wv dirocrToXtov. 
AtKct 8c IlauXox; recraapis r €7^tc^ToXat• 
e E7rra Se KaOoXt^ 2 , <ov 'ia/ccJ/Jou /xia, 
Avo) Se IIcVpov, rpets 8' 'IoodVvou 7raXt^ 
'IouSa 8' e<TTti> €J3S6[Jirj. TLd<ras ex €6S * 
Et rts Se rourcov cktos owe eV yvrjcrLOis. 

XVI. 

Iambi ad Seleucum. Ap. Gregor. Nazianz. C£ Amplrilocli. amphi-o- 
ed. Combef. pp. 130 n. icon. 

C. 380 A.D. 

UXrjv aXX €K€lvo TrpovpLaOtiv jmaXtora vol 

1 Metra Gregorius nullo certo or- 2 i. e. KaOdXucat. Al. eVra S£ rd 

dine commiscet ; quod lectores mo- tcadoKix'.-.AovKcCs, AeVd, eirrd, 'IoiyScT, 

nitos velim, ne quis Apocalypsim et in carm. sequ. upa, Aovica, relin- 

versu proxime sequent! olim com- quere quam corrigere malui. 
memoratam fuisse suspicetur. 

C. K K 



D. 



498 Catalogues of Boohs of the Bible 

APPENDIX HpoarJKOV, ov% a/7racra /3l/3\o<; do-cfraXrjs 

C H (rejxvov ovofxa nys ypacfrfjs KeKTrjfievr]. 
"Elcrlv yap elcrlv IcrO ore xj/evSwvvjxot 
"Bifikoi, Ttvcs fiev €fJLfi€croi kolL ycirovcs, 

'Os O.V TIS €17701, TWV aXrjOtLOLS Xoyan/. 

A i 8' av v68ol re koli Xiav iTrujtfxxkziq 
c £2s irapa(T7)ixa koX v66a vojxlot ^xaja, 
*A /JacriXecos pXv rrjv cViy pacfarjv <j>€p€i, 
Kt'/^S^Xa 8' c<JTt Tats vXais 8oXoi'/xcva. 
Tourcov X a P tv °" 01, T7 7 v ^€07rv€vora)V epeo 
J$l/3\(dv eKacTTrjv, cos 8' eu/cpivcos /xct^r/s 
Ta T^s 7raXatds 7rpcoTa Sia^/oys epeo. 

* H 7T€VTaT€VXOS 

TOVTOIS 'T^CTOUV TTpOCTidcf. KOLI TOVS KpiTClS, 

"E7reiTa tt;v 'Pot)#, BatriXccoV re recrcrapas 
Bt/2Xovs, IIapaX€t7rojLt€vtov 8c yc £uva>pi'8a. 
*EcrSpas cV aureus 7rpa>Tos, cW o Sorrcpos. 

'Efjys <TTi)(r}pds 7TcVr€ crot /Jt/JXo-us epeo 

ravrats 7rpo(j>T]Taq irpocrTiOzi totjs ScoSc/ca 

Mc^' ovs 7rpocf>7]Ta<; fxavOavc tovs recrcrapas.. 
Tourots irpocrzyKpiv overt rrjv EcrOrjp tivcs. 
Kaiv^s Ata6rji<r)s copa p,oi fSifiXovs \iy€tv 
EuayycXiOTas rccrcrapas 8e^ov jjlovovs, 
Mar^atov, cira MapAcov, co AoukoV rpirov 
IIpoo-#€ts dpiOfxei, rov 8' 'ItoaVw/v XP° V< P 
Teraprov, aXXa 7rpct)T0V tu^ei Soy/xarcov 
Bpovnijs yap vioV tovtov chorus KaXco 
Meyiarov ^x^travTa tcu ©cov Xoya>. 
Ai\ov Se fiifiXov Aovkol kgu rrjv Sevripav, 
Tr}v 7W Ka0oXiKcoV Ilpafccoi/ oVocttoXcov. 

To CTKCUOS cf^S 7TpOCTTl0a Tljs C/cXoy^S, 
ToV 7W idviOV KljpVKa, TOV T OLTTOCTTOXOV 

TLavXov, cxo<£cos ypdif/avTa rats iKKXrjcrtats 

'E7riOToXaS 8tS €7TTa 

Ttves 8c c£acri t^i/ 7rpos *E/3paiovs v66ov, 
Ovk €v Xeyovrcs' yvqeria yap r] \dpt<z. 



during the first Eight Centuries. 

ETcV Tt \0L7T0V J KOl6o\lk<j)V €TTL(TT0\u)V 

Tives /xev €7rra cJxxtlv, ol Se rpeis /was 
'Kprj vat Six^crO atj rrjv 'IaKw/3ov /uav, 
Mtav Se ITerpov, r^v T 'icaaVvov /uav, 
T«>es 8c ras rpcis, kcu Trpos aurais rag Suo 
Uerpov Se^ovTat, -nyv 'lovSa 8' £j3$6fJL7]V 
Trjv 8 AttokoKv^/iv ttjv laiavvov irakw 
Ttves p,€v lyKpLVovciv, ol 7t\€lovs Si ye 
No#ov Xiyovcriv. Ovtqs dt/^vSeoraTos 
Kai/(ov ay &t) tuv 6eo7rv€v(TT(DV ypac/x£v 



499 



APPENDIX 
D. 



XVII. 

Hody, de Textibus, p. 649 (Cf. Cotelier, P aires Apost. 1. 197; ^odd^Baro-c 

206. 



Montfaucon, i?iW. Coislin. 193, f.). 

Ilepi tg>v £' /3t/?AxW Kal ocra tovtwi/ Iktos. 

kcu M/.^ata?. 



a . Tevccrts. 

/?'. *E£oSos. 

y'. Acvltlkov. 

8'. 'ApiOfiOL. 

€ r . AeVTCpOVOfJLlOV. 

r'. I^crovs. 

J'. Kpiral /cal e Pov0. 

77'. BcKTtAciwv a'. 

6'. Ba<xiXeio3i/ /3'. 

1, ~Bacn\ei<2v y. 

10!. BacriXeian/ 8'. 

ij3\ UapaXenrofJieva e'. 

i ty'. 'lco/3. 

18'. S^aX'nfpiov. 

tc'. TlapoifAiou. 

it. 'EK/cX^o-iaoT^'s. 

i£ . Ao-fJLa acrp-arcov €, 

! «/. v EcrSpas. 

1 *'. 'A/xojs. 



k/3'. 'Icj^X. 
Ky . Ian/as. 
kS'. 'AjSSioi/. 
ice'. Naov/x,. 
/cr'. 'AfifiaKovfjL. 
#c£'\ 2oc/)Oi/ias. 
kt/. Ayyaioq. 
k& '. Za^aptag. 
X'. MaXa^t'as. 
Xa'. 'Hcratag. 
X/3 7 . 'Iepe/uas. 

Xy\ 'ic^KO^X. 

XS'. Aavu^X. 

Xe\ EuayyeXiov /card Mar0aToi/. 

Xr'. Kara Mdp/cov. 

X£ . KaTa AovkoV. 

'X?; . Kara 'Iwdvvrjv. 

X# . Ilpdfeis twv a7rocrToXa)i/. 

//. 'lcLK<Jjf30V €7rL(TT0Xt]. 

KK 2 



500 



Catalogues of Boohs of the Bible 



APPENDIX 
IX 



pa. Uirpov. 
jjl/3'. Uirpov. 
[Ay. 'IcoaWov. 
fjiK. 'Iwdwou 
fxe'. 'IwaWov. 
fir. 'IovSa. 



va. IIpos *E<£eoribi>s. 

vp . IIpos <&L\iinrr)criovs. 

vy . IIpos KoAao-craets. 

vo . IIpos ®€crcraXovtK€t?. 

ve. IIpos ©€CT(raXoi/tK€tS. 

vr . IIpos TifjLoOtov. 



/x£'. HavXov 7rpos 'Pco/mtVus. v£'. IIpos Ttp.o'0€ov. 

p/. IlavXov 7rpos Koptvfltovs. vt/. IIpos TtVoi/. 

pff. IIpos Koptvfltous. v#'. IIpos ^tXyjfxova. 

v. IIpos TaXaras. £'. IIpos 'E/3patovs. 



Kat oo-a c£a) raiv £'. 
a. o~o<£ta 2oXoju,aJvTos. 
/?. <rocf>ia 2tpax* 
y'. MaKKa/3atW. 
&. MoLKKapaiwv. 
e. MaKKa/JatW. 



t. MaKKa/?aiW. 

f. "Ecrftyp. 

77'. *Iov8iyft 

0\ Tg>/3it. 



Kat ocra airoKpv^a. 

a. 'ASa/x,. 

/3'. 'Evw^. 

y'. Aa/X€ X . 

8'. Uarpiapxai. 

e'. 9 Io)0"rjcj> lUpocrevxy. 

r'. 'EX8ajH Kat Mo8a/x. 

£'. kiaOrjKT) Mo)CT€(i)S. 

[r/. Deest.] 

#'. "^aX/xot SoXo/xwrros. 

i. HXtov aTroKaXvif/is. 

ia'. 'Hcratov opacts. 



i/^. 2o<£ovtou airoKaXvil/is. 



Za^aptou a7ro/caXui^ts. 
Eo*8pa aVoKaXvi^ts. 
Iolkw/3ov toropta. 
Ilerpov aVoKaXvi/fts. 
IlcptoSot Kat StSa^at 

aVoorToXajv. 
Bapi/a/?a cTrtcrroX^. 
i$ . IlavXov 7rpa£ts (7rpafets). 
k . IlauXov a7TOKaXi?i^ts. 



*y 

tS'. 



TCOV 



Ka 7 . At8ao"KaXta KX77/XCI/TOS. 
k/?* 'IyvaTtov StSaorKaXta. 
[Ky'. Deest. IIoXi;Ka'p7rov 8t8ao"KaXta. CW. Cois^m.] 
k8'. Evayye'Xtoi/ Kara Bapva/3a (-av). 
kc\ Euayye'Xtov Kara Mar#. (i. e. Marfltav). 



during the first Eight Centuries. 501 



xviii. APP ^ DIX 



DeSectisAct.il. (Gallandi, xu. 625seqq.) ...aVaptfyz77o-a)/xe0a C> E 5 ™"' 
ra iKKXrjo-iao-TLKoL /3t/3Xta. t<2v tolvvv €KkX7]ctlcilo~tli«j)V /?t/3XtW to. 
fxev rrjs 7raAatas etcrt ypaxfrrjv ra 8e rrjs ve'as. . .ttJs jxev ovv 7ra\atas 
/3t/3At'a etcrt k/3' '. a>v Tct /xeV etcrti/ toroptKa ra Se irpofyrjTiKa ra Se 7rap- 
aivtTiKara. Se 7rpos to xj/aXXetv yevojU,€va...Ta roiwv toToptKa fiifiXia. 
etcrti/ t/?' ... 77 reVecrts...?7 *EfoSos...ot Aeyo/xevot'Apt0p.ot...To AevtTt- 
kov...t6 A€VTepov6fJiLov...ravTa Se tcl 7r€VT€ /3lJ3\lol 7ravT€s tot; Mw- 
crecog fxaprvpovcnv etvat, ra yap ec^ef^s ouSets otSe tivos etcrt... cktov 
5 I?7croi;s tov Nav?7...KptTat. ..'Yovd. Te'crcrapes Ao'yot rwv /JacrtXetwi/ 
eV 8vo /3l/3\lols <f>€p6fievoL. . .€v$£kolt6v Ivtiv at IIapaAei7rop.evat . . . 
ouiSeKOLTov icrTLv...6 "EcrSpas. ..Upo<f)'r)TiKCL Se etcrt 7revT€...o Hcratas... 
o Iepe/xias...o < 'Ie£eKt?7A...d AavLrjX. . .7r£[J.7nov to SajSeKaTrpoc/r/Trov 
Aeyo/xevov...IIapau'€TiKa eto"t /3ij3Xta S', <Sv 7rpu)TOV o' 'Iai/J tovto 
Se rives ivofjucrav 9 Iwcr7]7rov etvat cruyypaju/xa...at Ilapot/xtai H<oXo- 
fiwvros. ..d 'EiKKXrjcriao-njs . . .to ^Acr/xa tojv 'Ao-fxdrwv. . . ctcrl Se raura 
ra rpta /3t/3A.ta tou SoAoyaaVros* p.€Ta Ta{rra ecrrt to tyaXTfjpLov. 
Kat ravra />tev etcrt ra k^ /StfiXia rys 7raAataV ttJs Se veas ef eto-t 
fii/3\ia 9 <I)V Svo 7repte^et tot)? riacrapas cvayyeAtoraV to /xev yap 
e^et Mar^atov Kat MapKOV, to Se erepov AovkoV Kat 'Icaavv^v. Tpt- 
tov eortv at 7rpafets t<2v dirocrToXaiv. riraprov at kolOoXlkoI eVi- 
crroAat ovcrat eWcr S>v irpwr] tov 'laKco/3ou ecrrr t; /^. Kat 77 y'. 
IleTpoir 7; S'. /cat e'. Kat or/, tot; 'icoaWoir 77 Se £'. tou IovSa. 
Ka0oAtKat Se iKXrfOrjcrav eVetS?} ov 7rpos ev e#vos £ypa<f>r]crav cos at 
tou ITavXov, aAAa Ka#dA.ou 7rpds irdvra* izi^TZTOV (3l/3Xlov at tS'. 
tov dytov IIavA.ov iiriarroXaC. zktov Icttlv t] dtroKaXvij/is tov aytov 
Iwavvov. 

TavTa iaTL Ta Kavovt£o/>iej/a f3t/3Xca kv Trj eKKX^crta Kat TTaXata 
Kat ve'a, wv ra 7raXata irdvTo. hiyovTai o\ 'EySpatot. 



502 



APPFNDIX. 
L>. 



NlCEPHORTT?, 

Patr. Const, 

806—815 

A.D. 



Catalogues of Books of the Bible 
XIX. 



Cf. Credner, Zur Gesch. d. K. ss. 119 ff. 1 

§ i. "Ocrcu elcri Btiai ypacjxu iKKXrjo-ia^OjJLevaL koli K€kolvovl- 

(TfJiivCU. KCU T] TQVTOiV <TTL)(OfJL€Tp Id OVTCO? 2 . 

a. Tiv tens' crrt^ot St. 
y . AcvtTtKov GTiypi fiif/. 

S'. 'ApLOfAOL* CTTLXOL ,y<£X'. 

c'* AevTtpovofxiov (TTixpL jyp\ 

S"'. 'lr)(TOVS' CTTL\Ol fip'. 

£'. KpiTdl KCU *¥ovQ* (TTl^OL fiv . 

rj . BacriXciooj/ a kcu, /3 /# <jtl\oi jScrp!. 
ff. m Bao-iXctwj/ y' kcu cT* cjtl\ol fiery • 
1. Uapa\ei7r6ix€va a kcu fi'* gtl\ol ,€<£'. 
ia\ *EcrSpas a kcu /3'* otl\oi €<j>\ 
i/3'. Bi/?Xos tyaXfjiuyv cttixqi tp\ 
ty , TLapoifxiai ^oXofxiovTOS' cttl)(OL jeup . 
18 . liuKKXrjcriacrTYJs' ari^oi <f>'. 
ie . Acr/xa acr/xaTcov (tti\qi cttt . 

IS". Ia)/3* CFTL^OL OLUi. 

i£'. 'Hcratas 7rpo<f>T]Trj^ (TTiypi /ya/. 
irf. 'leptfiias 7rpocf)7]Tr}S' crTiyoi ,S'. 
iff. Bapov^ # (TTL^OL if/' '. 

K. 'ie^CKt^A* CTTL\OL j& . 

kcl. AavLTjX* ctti\ol ft. 

k/3'. 01 SwSe/ca 7rpo(f>fJTCu 9 crri)(Oi y. 

'Ofxov Trjs 7raXatas SiaOrJKrjs fiifiXia. eiKoeri Svo. 
§ ii. T^s veas SiaOrJKrjs. 

a . EuayycXiov KaTa Mar^atov crri^ot fi<j>. 
($'. EwyycXiov Kara Map/cov <iTi)(pi fi'. 
y . EvayycXiov Kara Aov/cav or foot, fix. 



1 Lectt. varr. vers. Lat. Anastasii 
(c. 870 a.d.) apposui e Cod. Bum. 
(Mus. Brit.) 284, ssec. xii. vel xiii. f. 
*8 3 . 

2 Cod. Hce sunt divines scriptures 



quce rccipiuntur ab ecclesia et canoni- 
zantur. Harumque versuum numerus 
ut subjicitur...Hi autem sunt novi 
Testamenii. 



5 
/ 6 



during the first Eight Centimes. 503 

K. YtvayyiXiov kclto. 'Iwdwrjv cttlxol fir. 1 APPENDIX 

c'. IlpafciS TQ)V dirocTToXtoV otlxol fiuf. 

r \ HavXov €7TLo~ToXal tS 7 * otlxol ^t. 

£'. K.a6o\iKal 2 £'. 9 laK(x>j3ov a. ILerpov (¥. 'Iwdvvov y. 
'IouSa a'. 3 
'Ofxov Trjs vias Sia^KT/s /?i/?Aia Kr'. 4 
§ iii. Kai ocrat avTikiyovrai rrjs 7raAaias avrai ctcrtv. 

a. MaK/ca/?atKa y* otlxol tr' , 

(3'. 2o(/>ia SoAo/xaWos* cttlxol ap'. 

y. So</na vlov tov 2tpa^' otlxol fi<J. 

tY. ^aAtioi Kal toSal SoXo/xaji/ros* ort^oi jSp'. 

e'. 9 Ecr0?7p* (TTLypi tv'. 

r • Kai 'IovSt/^* otlxol a\j/\ 

tj. %wa-avva* (TTLXOL <£'. 

t;'. Td)/3rJT 6 kolI To/Jias* cttlxol if/* 
§ iv. Kai ocrat t^s veas aVrtAeyoirai. 

a. ATTOKaXvij/is *I.o)avvov otlxol av 

ft. 'AiroKaXvij/LS TLerpov otlxol r ? 

y. "Bapvdjia I-ttlcttoXt]' cttlxol clt^, . 8 

S'. EvayyeAioi/ Kara 'E/Jpatovs' cttlxol fir . 9 
§ V. Kai oca d7roKpi;</>a rrjs 7raXatas. 

a'. "Evci^* (ttlxol ,8a/. 

ft. TlaTpldpX<U' CTLXOL €p'. 

y'. Upoorevxrj 'Iaxr^* q~tlxol ap'. 

S'. ^LaOrjKr] Maruo-ecos* cttlxol ap'. 

e'. 'AvdXrjij/Ls Monxrews' otlxol av\ 

s J . 'A/Jpaa/x* cttlxol t 9 . 

£'. *EXaS Kat MwSaS' cttlxol v. 

r[. 'EXta 7rpo(j>T]Tow otlxol tlt. 

6 '. %o<\>ovlov 7rpocf)rJTOV oti;(01 x» 

l. ZaxoipCov 7rarpos 'IwaWov* otlxol </>'. 

1 Cod. Hdccc. 5 Cod. Et quibus novi contradici- 

3 Cod. + Epistolce. tur. 

3 Cod. +Simul septem: versus no Cod. iv. 

lCQQ t ' Cod. IlllDCCC. 

4 Cod. Simul veteris quidem Tes- * Cod - iccovi. 
tamenti libri xxli et novi vii. ^ oc *« ^ cc * 



APPENDIX 
D. 



504 Catalogues of Boohs of the Bible 

k\ Bapovft 'A/S^a/con/*, 'Efe/a^X kcu Aart^X ^cvScirt- 
ypacjxi. 

§ vi. Kat ocra tt}S vcas a7roKpv<f>a. 

a, 1 Il€pLO$OS ILtTpOV (TTt^Ol fiif/v'. 

(3\ IleptoSoS 9 I(J)OLVVOV OTIY/H fix* 

y'. IIcpioSos ©w/xa* cttl^ol a\j/~ 

S'. EvayyeXiov Kara ®(o/iav ort^ot ar'. s 

c'. AtSa^ a7ro(rToXaJV crrC^ot r'. 

r. KX^/x€vto5 a. /J'' <T7lxol fix- 4 

£ . Iyvariov, IIoXuKapTroUj [Ilot/icvos kgu] 'Ep/Jtcr crri^oi. 



Cod. daroiRL 



XX. 

Versvs Srihtvrarvm Sanctarvm & 
ita Genesis vervs (sic) hITd 



Exodvs versvs 


Hidcc 


Leviticvm versvs 


HDCCC 


Nvraeri versvs 


Hidci, 


Devteronomivm ver. 


mccc 


Iesv Navve ver. 


» 


Ivdicvm ver. 


H 


Rvd ver. 


CCL. 


Hegnorvm ver. 




primvs liber ver. 


iii> 


secvndvs lib. ver. 


S 


tertivs lib. ver. 


11DC 


qvartvs lib. ver. 


ncccc 


Psalmi Davitici ver. 


D* 


Proverbia ver. 


IDC 


Aeclesiastes 


DC 



3 Cod. + Itincrarium Pauli. ver n 
iUdc. 
. 2 Cod. 11D. 

3 Cod. Coisl. ap. Montf. p. 204: 
i] airoKaXvipis 'Iwawou...crr/xot y a0'. 

4 Cod. Clementis xocxii. 

5 Cod. Pastaris...? 

6 Ex edit. Tischdf. p. 468 sq. 
Hie Index inter Epistolas ad Philem. 



et ad Hebr. interponitur. Nihil 
vero est in Grseco Cod. textu quod 
stichometrise respondeat, quam e 
codice Latino Scriba Grsectis (?Alex- 
andrinus). Equidem e Latina, seu 
potius ex Africana origine deductam 
esse crediderim, et certe saeculo 
quarto antiquiorem. Neque aliter 
censet Tischdf. Proleg. p. 



xv in. 



during the first Eight Centuries. 



505 



Cantica Canticorvm ccc 



469 a 



Sapientia vers. 
Sapientia ihv ver. 
xii Profetae ver. 


1 

iii> 

lUcx 


Ossee ver. 


DXXX 


Amos ver. 


ccccx 


Micheas ver. 


cccx 


Ioel ver. 


xc 


Abdias ver. 


LXX 


Ionas ver. 


CL 


Navm ver. 


CXL 


Ambaevm ver. 


CLX. 


Sophonias ver. 


CLX. 


Aggevs vers. 


ex. 


Zacharias ver. 


DCLX 


Malachiel ver. 


CQ 


Eseias ver. 


lilDC 


Ieremias ver. 


IIIlKSX 


Ezechiel ver. 


lliDG 


Daniel ver. 


1DO 


Maccabeorvm sic 




lib. primvs ver. 
lib. secvndvs ver. 


ilccc 
ncco 


lib. qvartvs ver. 
Ivdit ver. 


1 

1CCG 


Hesdra 


ID 


Ester ver. 


1 


lob ver. 


IDC 


Tobias ver. 


1 


Evangelia 
Matthevm ver. 


iiii 

11DG 


Iohannes ver. 


il 


Marcvs ver. 


IDC 


Lvcam ver. 


11DCCCC 


Epistvlas Pavli 
ad Romanos ver. 


1XL 



APPENDIX 



506 



Catalogues of Books of the Bible 



ENDIX 

T> 


ad Chorintios. I. ver. 


Ilx 


A/. 


ad Chorintios. n. ver. 


LXX 1 




1 ad Galatas ver. 


CCCL 




ad Efesios ver. 


CCCLXV 




ad Tiniothevm .1. ver 


ccviii 




ad Tiniothevm .11. ver. 


ccLXXXviiii 




ad Titvm ver. 


CXL 




ad Colosenses ver. 


ccii 




ad Filiraoneni ver. 


L 




ad (sic) Petrvm prima 


cc 




ad Petrvm .11. ver. 


CXL 


col. b Jacobi ver. 


ccxx 




Pr. Iohanni Epist. 


ccxx 




Iohanni Epistvla .ii. 


XX 




Iohanni Epistvla. .111. 


XX 




Ivdse Epistvla ver. 


LX 




2 Barnabae Epistvla ver. 


DCCCL 3 




Iohannis Revelatio 


ICC 




Actvs Apostolorvm 


11DC 




2 Pastoris versi 


mi 




2 Actvs Pavli ver. 


IIlDLX 




2 Revelatio Petri 


CCLXX 



AUGUSTINTTS, 

Ep. Uippoiu 

355- 

f 430 A.D, 



XXI. 

Be Doctr. Christiana 11. 12 (vm.) (ed. Bened. Par. 1836). 
Erit igitnr divinarnm scripturamm solertissimns indagator, 
qni primo totas legerit notasque habuerit, et si nondum in- 
tellectn jam tamen lectione, duntaxat eas qnse appellantnr 
Canonicse. Nam ca3teras secnrius leget fide veritatis instruc- 
tus, ne prseoccupent imbecillnm animum, et pericnlosis men- 
daciis atque phantasmatis elndentes prsejndicent aliqnid contra 
sanam intelligentiam. In canonicis antem Scripturis, ecclesia- 

1 Non dubium est quia h. 1. li- 
brarius per incuriam scripserit LXX 
pro ilxx (Tisch. p. 589). 

3 Hoc nomine ut videtur, Ep. ad 
Hebrceos designatur cui idem ver- 



suum numerus in uno Graeco codice 
tribuitur. Ex. Latinis alii DCC alii 



DCCC versus numerant. Contra Apo- 
cryphae Bamabce Epistolce in Nice- 
phori JStichometria MCCCLX (MCCCVi) 
versus tribuuntur. 

3 His quatuor versibus...inanu 
satis recenti propositi sunt obeli. 
(Tisch. p. 589.) 



daring the first Eight Centuries. 507 

rum catholicamm quamplurium auctoritatem sequatur ; inter appendix 
quas sane illae sint, quae apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas 
accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis 
Canonicis, ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis cat ho - 
licis prseponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt : in eis vero qiue 
non accipiuntur ab omnibus, prseponat eas quas plures gravio- 
resque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis 
ecclesise tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a 
gravioribus haberi, quanquam hoc facile in venire non possit, 
aequalis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto. 13. Totus autem 
Canon Scripturarum in quo istam considerationem versandam 
dichnus, his libris continetur : Quinque Movseos id est Genesi, 
Exodo, Levitico, Numeris, Deuteronomio ; et uno libro Jesu 
Nave, uno Judicuin, uno libello qui appellatur Ruth, qui magis 
ad Regnorum principium videtur pertinere et duobus Para- 
lipomenon non consequentibus sed quasi a latere adjunctis 
simulque pergentibus. Hsec est historia qua3 sibimet annexa 
tempora continet atque ordinem rerum : sunt aliaa tanquam 
ex diverso ordine quae neque huic ordini neque inter se con- 
nectuntur, sicut est Job et Tobias et Esther et Judith et 
MachabaBorum libri duo et Esdrse duo, qui magis subsequi 
videntur ordinatam illam historiam usque ad Regnoruni vel 
Paralipomenon terminatam : deinde Prophets in quibus David 
unus liber Psalmorum, et Salomonis tres Proverbiorum, Cantica 
Canticorum, et Ecclesiastes. Nam illi duo libri unus qui Sapi- 
entia et alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur de quadam similitu- 
dine Salomonis esse dicuntur, nam Jesus Sirach eos eonscrip- 
sisse constantissime perhibetur qui tamen quoniam in auctori- 
tatem recipi meruerunt inter propheticos numerandi sunt. 
Reliqui sunt eoruni libri qui proprie Prophets appellantur, 
duodecim Prophetarum libri singuli, qui connexi sibimet quoniam 
nunquam sejuncti sunt pro uno habentur; quorum Prophe- 
tarum nomina sunt hsec, Osee Malachias: deinde quatuor 

Prophetse sunt majorum voluminum Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, 
Ezechiel. His quadraginta quatuor libris Testamenti Veteris 
terminatur auctoritas : Novi autem, quatuor libris Evangelii, 



APPENDIX 
D. 



508 Catalogues of Books of the Bible 

secundum Matthaeum, secundum Marcum, secundum Lucam, 
secundum Joannein; quatuordecim Epistolis Pauli Apostoli, 
ad Romanos, ad Corintbios duabus, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, 
ad Philippenses, ad Tliessalonicenses duabus, ad Colossenses, 
ad Timotlieum duabus, ad Titum, ad Philemonem, ad Hebraos ; 
Petri duabus; tribus Joannis; una Judse et una Jacobi; 
Actibus Apostolorum libro uno, et Apocalypsi Joannis libro 
uno. 14 (ix.) In his omnibus libris timentes Deuru et pietate 
mansueti quserunt voluntatem Dei. 



Can. Murat. 



PHILASTRIUS. 
t C. 387 A.D. 



Cf. App. C. 



XXII. 



XXIIL 



Hcer. lxxxviit. (Gallandi, vii. 480 sqq.)... Statu turn est ab 
apostolis et eorum successoribus non aliud legi in ecclesia debere 
catholica nisi Legem et Prophetas et Evangelia et Actus Apo- 
stolorum, et Paulli tredecim epistolas, et septem alias, Petri 
duas, Joannis tres, Judse unam, et unam Jacobi, quae septem 
Actibus Apostolorum conjunctse sunt... 

Hcer. lxxxix. Sunt alii quoque [hseretici] qui epistolam Paulli 
ad Hebneos non asserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Baraabse 
esse Apostoli aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi; alii autem 
Lucae Evangelists aiunt ; epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses 
scriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea qusedam non bene sen- 
tientes inde non legitur in ecclesia ; et si legitur a quibusdam, 
non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi tredecim epistolse 
ipsius et ad Hebrseos interdum...quia factum Christum dicit 
in ea inde non legitur; de pcenitentia autem propter Nova- 
tianos seque. 

Hcer. LX....sunt hseretici qui Evangelium secundum Jo- 
annem et Apocalypsim ipsius non accipiunt, et...in heeresi 
permanent pereuntes ut etiam Cerinthi illius hseretici esse 
audeant dicere, et Apocalypsim itidem non beati Joannis 
Evangelists et Apostoli sed Cerinthi hseretici... 



during the first Fight Centuries, 509 



XXIY APPENDIX 



Prologus Galeatus in libros Samuel et Jfalachim. Viginti Hiiwwy- 

f o Ml EL 

et cluas litteras esse apud Hebraeos Syrorum quoque et Chal- 1 * 2 ° A - D - 
daeorum lingua testatur. . . . Porro qninque litterae duplices apud 
Hebraeos sunt...unde et quinque a plerisque libri duplices sesti- 
mantur, Samuel, Malachim, Dabre-Iamim, Ezras, Jereruias 
cuui Cinoth, id est Lamentation ibus suis. Quomodo igitur 
viginti duo elementa sunt per quae scribimus Hebraice omne 
quod loquimur et eorum initiis vox liumana comprehenditur, 
ita viginti duo volumina supputantur, quibus quasi litteris et 
exordiis in Dei doctrina tenera adhuc et lactens viri justi eru- 
ditur infantia. 

Primus apud eos liber vocatur Bresiih, quern nos Genesim 

dicimus. Secundus Hi sunt quinque libri Mosi quos pro- 

prie Thorath id est legem appellant. 

Secundum Prophet-arum ordinem faciunt, ut incipiunt ab 
Jesu filio Nave...Deinde subtexunt... Judicum librum, et in 
eundem compingunt Puth...Tertius sequitur Samuel... Quar- 
tus....Regum....Quintus Isaias. Sextus Jeremias. Septimus 
Iezeciel. Octavus liber duodecim Prophetarum — 

Tertius ordo Hngiographa possidet ; et primus liber incipit 
ab Job. Secundus a David ... Tertius est Solomon, tres libros 
habens, Proverbia . . . Ecclesiasten . . . Canticum Canticorum. Sex- 
tus est Daniel. Septimus... qui apud nos Paralipomenon pri- 
mus et secundus inscribitur. Octavus Ezras ... Xonus Esther. 

Atque ita fiunt pariter veteris legis libri viginti duo, id 
est, Mosi quinque, Prophetarum octo, Hagiographorum novem. 
Quamquam nonnulli Ruth et Cinoth (Lamentationes) inter Ha- 
giographa scriptitent et libros hos in suo putent numero suppu- 
tandos, ac per hoc esse priscae legis libros viginti quatuor, quos 
sub numero viginti quatuor seniorum Apocalypsis Joannes in- 
ducit adorantes Agnum et coronas suas prostratis vultibus 

offerentes 

Hie prologus Scripturarum, quasi galeatum principium 
omnibus libris quos de Hebraeo vertimus in Latinum convenire 
potest; ut scire valeamus quidquid extra hos est inter Apo- 



510 



Catalogues of Boohs of the Bible 



APPENDIX 
D. 



RUFINUS. 
C. 410 A.D. 



crypha esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia quae vulgo Saloinonis 
inscribitur, et Jesu filii Sirach liber, et Judith, et Tobias, et 
Pastor, non sunt in Canone. Machabaeorum primum librum 
Hebraicum reperi. Secundus Graecus est; quod ex ipsa quoque 
<j>pdcrei probari potest — 

Ad Paid. Ep. liii. § 8 (1. p. 548 ed. Migne). 

Cernis me Scripturarum amore raptum ^xcessisse modum 

epistolae, et tamen non implesse quod volui. Tangam et 

Novum breviter Testamentum. Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas, et 
Johannes, quadriga Domini' et verum Cherubim, quod inter- 
pretatur scientiae multitudo, per totum corpus oculati sunt, 
scintillae emicant, discurrunt fulgura, pedes habent rectos et in 
sublime tendentes, terga pennata et ubique volitantia. Tenent 
se mutuo, et quasi rota in rota volvuntur, et pergunt quocun- 
que eos flatus Sancti Spiritus perduxerit. Paulus Apostolus 
ad septem ecclesias scribit, octava enim ad Hebraeos a pleris- 
que extra numerum ponitur, Timotheum instruit ac Titum, 
Philemonem pro fugitivo famulo (Onesimo) deprecatur. Super 
quo tacere melius puto quam pauca scribere. Actus Aposto- 
loruni nudam quidem sonare videntur historiam et nascentis 
Ecclesiam infantiam texere ; sed si noverimus scriptorem eorum 
Lucam esse medicum, cujus laus est in Bvangelio, animadver- 
temus pariter omnia verba illius animse languentis esse medi- 
cinam. Jacobus, Petrus, Joannes, Judas, Apostoli, septem 
epistolas ediderunt tarn mysticas quam succinctas, et breves 
pariter et longas : breves in verbis, longas in sententiis, ut rarus 
sit qui non in earum lectione csecutiat. Apocalypsis Joannis 
tot habet sacramenta quot verba. Parum dixi pro merito 
voluminis. Laus omnis inferior est : in verbis singulis multi- 
plies latent intelligentise. 

XXY. 

Coram, in Synth. Apost. § 36 (Ed. Migne, Paris, 1849)... 
Hie igitur Spiritus Sanctus est qui in veteri Testamento 
Legem et Prophetas, in novo Evangelia et Apostolos inspiravit. 
Unde et Apostolus dicit: 2 Tim. 3. Et ideo quae sunt Kovi 



during the first Eight Centimes. 511 

ac Veteris Testamenti volumina, quae secundum majornm tradi- appendix 
tionem per ipsuni Spiritum Sanctum inspirata creduntur, et 
ecclesiis Christi tradita, competens videtur hoc in loco evidenti 
numero, sicut ex patram monumentis accepimus, designare. 

§ 37. Itaque Veteris Testamenti, omnium primo Moysi 
quinque libri sunt traditi, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, 
Deuteronomium. Post haec Jesus Nave, Judicum simul cum 
Ruth. Quatuor post haec Regnorum libri quos Hebraei duos 
numerant; Paralipomenon, qui diernm dicitur liber; et Esdrae 
duo, qui apud illos singuli computantur, et Hester. Prophe- 
tarum vero Esaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel et Daniel : praeterea duo- 
decim Prophetarum liber unus. Job quoque et Psalmi David 
singuli sunt libri. Salomonis vero tres ecclesiis traditi, Pro- 
verbia, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum. In his concluserunt 
numerum librorum Veteris Testamenti. 

Novi vero quatuor Evangelia, Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, et 
Joannis. Actus Apostolorum quos describit Lucas. Pauli 
apostoli epistolae quatuordecim. Petri apostoli duae. Jacobi 
fratris domini et apostoli una. Judae una. Joannis tres. 
Apocalypsis Joannis. 

Haac sunt qua3 patres intra Canonem concluserunt, et ex 
quibus fidei nostra assertiones constare voluerunt. 

§ 38. Sciendum tarn en est quod et alii libri sunt qui non 
Canonici sed Ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt, id est 
Sapientia, quae dicitur Salomonis, et alia Sapientia, quae dicitur 
filii Sirach...Ejusdem vero ordinis libellus est Tobiae et Judith : 
et Machabaeorum libri. 

In Novo vero Testamento libellus qui dicitur Pastoris seu 
Hernias, qui appellatur Duae viae vel Judicium Petri. Quae 
omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad 
auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Caeteras vero Scriptu- 
ras Apocryphas nominarunt, quas in Ecclesiis legi noluerunt. 

Haec nobis a patribus tradita sunt, quae (ut dixi) oppor- 
tunum visum est hoc in loco designare, ad instructionem eorum 
qui prima sibi ecclesiae ac fidei elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant, 
ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda sint pocula, 



512 



Catalogues of Books of the Bible 



APPENDIX 

Innocentius. 
Ep. Rom. 
t 416 A.D. 



GELA.SIUS. 



XXYI. 

Ad Exsuperiun ep. Tolosanum 1 (Gallandi, Bibl. Pp. viii. 
561 seqq.). Hsec sunt ergo 2 quae desiderata moneri voluisti : 
Moysi libri quinque...et Jesu Nave, et Judicuni, et Regnorum 
libri quatuor simul et Puth, prophetarum libri sexdecim, Salo- 
monis libri quinque, Psalterium. Item historiarum, Job liber 
unus, Tobiae unus, Hester unus, Judith unus, Machabeorum 
duo, Esdrae duo, Paraliponienon duo. Item Novi Testamenti : 
Evangeliorum libri iiii ; Pauli Apostoli Epistolae xiiii : Epi- 
stolae Johannis tres : Epistolae Petri duae : Epistola Judae : 
Epistola Jacobi : Actus Apostolorum : Apocalypsis Johannis. 
Caetera autem quae vel sub nomine Matthias, sive Jacobi mino- 
ris, vel sub nomine Petri et Johannis, quae a quodam Leucio 
scripta sunt, vel sub nomine Andrese, quae a Nexocharide 3 et 
Leonida philosophis, vel sub nomine Thomae, et si qua sunt 
talia 4 , non solum repudianda verum etiam noveris esse dam- 
nanda. [Data x kal. Mart. Stilichone ii. et Anthemio virr. 
clarr. coss 5 .] (a.d. 405) 

XXVII. 

Decretum de libris recipiendis el non recipiendis (Credner, 
Zur Gesch. d. K. p. 192 sqq.). Incipit confirmatio domini 
Gelasii Papae de libris Yeteris ac Novi Testamenti. 

§ 1. In principio videlicet quinque libri Moysis. 
Genesis liber i. 



Jesu Nave liber i. 
Judicum liber i. 
Ruth liber i. 
Regum libri iv. 
Paralipomenon libri ii. 
Psalm or um cl. liber i. 



1 E cod. Coll. SS. Trin. (A) colla- 
tis B (cf. p. 483, n. 8) et Cotton. 
Claud. E, V (D). 

2 BD; om. ergo A Gall. 



3 anexocharide, B. 

4 ABD— alia Gall. 

5 om. ABD. 



during the first Eight Centuries. 



513 



Salomonis libri iii. 
Pro verbiorum . . . 
Sapientiae liber i. 
Ecolesiasticus liber i. 

§ 2. Item Propltetce numero xvi. 

Esaise liber i 

Danielis liber i. 

Osee liber i 

Malachise liber i. 

§ 3. Item Storiarum. 

Job liber i. 

Tobias liber i. 

Ester liber i. 

Judith liber L 

Esdra libri ii. 

Machabseorum libri ii. 
§ 4. Item ordo Scripturarum Novi Testamenti, quern Sancta 
Catlwlica Romana suscipit et veneratur ecclesia 1 . Evaugeliorum 2 
libri iv, id est 3 sec. Matthseum lib. 1. sec. Mar cum lib. 1. sec. 
Lucam lib. 1. sec. Joannem lib. 1. Item Actuum Apostolo- 
rum liber unus 4 . 

§ 5. Epistolse Pauli Apostoli num. xiiii 5 . 



APPENDIX 



1 Recensionum quae Damasi (D) 
et Hormisdae (H) nomina prae se fe- 
runt lectt. varr. apposui; singulas 
quasque Codd. lectiones Credner da- 
bit. Id vero minime praetermitten- 
dum esse credo duos Mus. Brit, 
codices decretum Gelasii de libris 
apocryphis continere, nullo lihrorum 
S. Scripturae canone praeposito ; quo- 
rum alter (Cotton. Vesp. B, 13, 12) 
ita incipit : Post propheticas et evan- 
gelicas scripturas atque apostolicas 
scripturas vel veteris vet novi testa- 
menti, quas regulariter suscipimus, 
sancta Romana ecclesia has non pro- 
hibet suscipi. Sanctam Synodum Ni- 
ccenam... Alter vero (Add. 15, 222, 
saec. xi.) eundem fere quern cod. L. 
(Credner, p. 178) textum exhibet, 

C. 



alio tamen titulo: Incipit decretum 
Gelasii papoz quern (sic) in urbe Roma 
cum LXX. eruditissimis episcopis 
conscripsit. Equidem, ut veruin fa- 
tear, librorum ecclesiasticorum et 
apocryphorum indiceni multo inajo- 
ris auctoritatis esse quam SS. Scrip- 
turarum canonem existimo. 

2 Evangelium, D. 

3 om. id est, H. 

4 D. Actus Apostolorum liber i. 
post Apocalypsim ponit. 

5 Credner, XIII. nulla variatione 
notata; sed quum quatuordecim in 
Codd. fere xiiii. scribatur, vereor ne 
Areval., cujus collationem Cod. A. 
Sequitur, eum in errorem induxerit. 
Epp. Paidi (-{-apostoli H) numero 
xiv. D. H. indice addito. 

L L 



514 



Catalogues of Books of the Bible 



APPENDIX 

D. 



Cassiodorus. 
e. 47c— 565 

JL.IK 



HlLARIUS t 

Pictao. Ep. 



§ 6. Apocalypsis 1 liber i. Apostolicse epistolae 2 numero 
vii. Petro apostoli numero 3 ii. Jacobi apostoli numero 3 i. 
Joannis apostoli iii\ Judae Zelotis 5 . 

XXYIII. 

Be instit. div. Litt. cap. xiv 6 . Scriptura Sancta secundum 
antiquam translationem in Testamenta duo ita dividitur, id est 
in Yetus et in Novum 7 . In Genesim...Deuteronomium, Jesu 
E~aue...Regum libros quatuor, Paralipomenon libros duos, 
Psalterium librum unum, Salomonis libros quinque, i. e. Pro- 
verbia, Sapientiam, Ecclesiasticum, Ecclesiasten, Canticum 
Canticorum, Prophetas id est Isaiam...Danielein, Osee...Ma- 
lachiam qui et Angelus, Job, Tobiam, Esther, Judith, Esdra 
duos, Machabaeorum duos. Post hsec sequuntur Evangelia 
quatuor 8 , id est Matthsei, Marci, Lucoe, Johannis : Actus 
Apostolorum : Epistolae Petri ad gentes 9 : Jacobi 10 : Johannis 
ad Parthos: Epistohe Pauli ad Romanos una, ad Corinthios 11 
duse, ad Galatas 12 una, ad Philippenses una, ad Ephesios una 13 , 
ad Colossenses una, ad Hebrseos una, ad Thessalonicenses u 
duse, ad Timotheum duae, ad Titum una 15 , ad Philemonem 
una : Apocalypsis 16 Johannis. 

XXIX. 

Prol. in Psalm. 15. Et ea causa est ut in viginti duos 
libros lex Testamenti Yeteris deputetur, ut cum litterarum 
numero convenirent. Qui ita secundum traditiones veterum 
deputantur, ut Moysi sint libri quinque, Jesu !Naue sextus, 



1 Item Apocalypsis Joannis (+ apo- 
stoli D) lib. i. DH. 

3 Item epistoloz canonical D item 
cann. epp. H. 

3 om. numero DH. 

4 Joannis Apost. ep. i. Alterius 
Joannis Presbyteri epp. ii. D. 

5 4- epistola i D. + apostoli epistola 
H. 

6 E cod. Reg. Mus. Brit. 13 A, 
xxi. 7 (a) : collatis codd. Cotton. 
Claud. B, 13, 8 (j8) ; Reg. 10 B, xv. 
MY); 5 B > viii. 6 (5). 

Idem divisiones secundum Hiero- 



nymum et Augustinum in capitibus 
proxime praecedentibus tradidit. 

7 Edd. = in. 

8 Evangeliorum quatuor Matthozus, 
&c. (3y8 ; Evangelists quatuor, edd. 

9 Edd. + Juda>. Sed omm. a^y5. 

10 Edd. + ad duodecim tribus, 

11 Chorinthios 7. 

12 Galathas ayd. 

13 Edd. =. ad Ephesios una err. typ.? 
ad Ephesios duoz 5. 

14 Tessalonicenses y8. 

15 ad Tit. una ad Tim. duoz /?. 

16 Apocalypsin 5. 






during the first Eight Centuries. 515 

Judicum et Ruth septinms, primus et secundus Regnorum in appendix 
octavum, tertius et quartus in novum, Paralipomenon duo h ' 

in decimum sint, sermones dierum, Esdne in undecimum, liber 
Psalmorum in duodecimum, Salomonis Proverbia, Ecclesiastes 
Canticum Canticorum in tertium decimum, quartum decimum 
et quintum decimum, duodecim autem Prophetse in sextum 
decimum, Esaias deinde et Jeremias cum Lamentatione et 
Epistola ; sed et Daniel et Ezechiel et Job et Hester, viginti 
I et duum librorum numerum consumment \ Quibusdam autem 
! visum est additisTobia et Judith viginti quatuor libros secundum 
numerum Grsecarum litterarum connumerare, Roman a quoque 
lingua media inter Hebrseos Grsecosque collecta; quia Ms 
maxime tribus Unguis sacramentum voluntatis Dei et beati 
regni expectatio prasdicatur. . . . 

XXX. 

JDe or dine Librorum S. Scripturce init 2 . Migne, Iddorus, Isidore, 

m „ r & Bp. Hiipai. 

Tom. v. 155 ff. t6 3 6A.i>. 

1. Plenitudo Novi et Yeteris Testamenti quam in canone 
catholica recipit Ecclesia juxta vetustam priorum traditionem 
ista est. 

2. In principio videlicet quinque libri Moysi... 

3. Huic succedunt libri Jesu jtfaue, Judicum et...Ruth... 

4. Hos sequuntur quatuor libri Regum. Quorum quidem 
Paralipomena libri duo e latere annoctuntur.... 5. Alia sunt 
volumina quae in consequentibus diversorum inter se temporum 
texunt historias, ut Job liber, et Tobise, et Esther, et Judith, et 
Esdrse, et Machabseorum libri xluo. 

6. Sed hi omnes prater librum Job Regum sequuntur 
historiam... 

7. Ex quibus quidem Tobias, Judith et Machabaeorum 

Hebrsei non recipiunt. Ecclesia tamen eosdem inter Canonicas 

scripturas enumerat. 

1 Heec ex Origins transtulit Hila- genis textum libro duodecim pro- 

rius [Cf. supra § 13] cujus verba in phetaruin addito supplevit. 

uno saltern loco parum intellexit, 2 E Cod. Reg. (Mus. Brit) 5 B. 

Hebraicura tuv TrapaXenrophHw titu- ▼iii. (a) ; colL Cod. Cotton. Vesp. B. 

lum cseteris omissis Latine interpre- xiii. (b).— Ci*. Isid. Proem. £§ 60— 

tando. Idem tamen corr upturn Ori- 109. 



LL3 



516 Catalogues of Boohs of the Bible 

appendix 8. Occurrunt dehinc Prophets, in qtiibus est Psalmorum 

liber unus, et Salomonis libri tres, Proverbiorum scilicet, Ec- 
clesiastes et Cantica Canticorum. Duo quoque illi egregii et 
sanctse institutions libelli, Sapientiam dico et alium qui vocatur 
Ecclesiasticus ; qui dum dicantur a Jesu filio Sirach editi, tamen 
propter quamdam eloquii similitudinem Salomonis titulo sunt 
prsenotati. Qui tamen in Ecclesia parem cum reliquis Canoni- 
cis libris tenere noscuntur auctoritatem 

9. Supersunt libri sedecim propbetarum...Hinc occurrit 
Testamentum Novum, cujus primum Evangeliorum libri sunt 
quatuor, Matthasus 1 et Marcus, Lucas et Johannes. Sequuntur 
deinde Epistolse Pauli apostoli xiiii. id est, ad Roman os, ad 
Corinthios duaa, ad Galatas 2 , ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses 3 , 
et ad Thessalonicenses duse, ad Colossenses, ad Timotheum dua?, 
ad Titum vero et ad Philemonem et ad Hebrseos singulse epi- 
stolse, Jacobi apostoli una 4 , Petri duse, Jphannis iii. 5 Judas 
una. Actus etiam Apostolorum a Luca Evangelista conscrip- 
tus; et Apocalypsis Johannis apostoli. Fiunt ergo in ordine 
utriusque Testamenti libri septuaginta et duo. 

14. Hsec sunt enim nova et vetera quae de thesauro Domini 
proferuntur, e quibus cuncta sacramentorum mysteria revelantur. 
Hi sunt duo Seraphim qui in confessione sanctse Trinitatis 
jugiter certantes rpis ayios hymnum erumpunt. 

16. Hse litterse sacrse, hi libri integri numero et auctori- 
tate : aliud cum istis nihil est comparandum. Quicquid extra 
hos fuerit inter hsec sacra et divina nullatenus recipiendum 6 . 

XXXI. 
J0A.NKES Et>. 143. ad Henricum Comitem Campanice. Qusesitum 

S ARISE DKIEXSIS f TO 

T165-6A.D. vero est quern credam numerum esse librorum vetens et Novi 

Testamenti et quos auctores eorum; quid Hieronymus in Epi- 

- stola ad Paulinum presbyterum de omnibus libris divinse j)a- 

gellse ascripta dicat mensam solis a philosopho Apollonio littera 

1 + quoque b. 4 om. una a. 

2 Galaihas ab. 5 iiii or a. 

3 Philipenses a. 6 recipienda b. 



during the first Eight Centimes. 517 

persequente visam in sabulo ; quid item Yirgilii centonas et appendix 
Homeri centonas in eadem dicat Epistola...De primis duabus 
qusestionibus, de numero scilicet librorum et auctoribus eorum 
Cassiodorus elegantem composuit librum ; sed quia in hac parte 
fides mea discutitur, mea vel aliorum non multa interesse arbi- 
tror quid credatur; sic [si] enim hoc credatur an alterum nul- 
lum salutis affert dispendium. In eo autem quod nee obest 
nee prodest aut in alterutro parum momenti affert acrius liti- 
gare ; nonne idem est ac si de lana caprina inter amicos acer- 
bius contendatur 1 Proinde magis fidem arbitror impugnare si 
quis id de quo non constat pervieacius statuat, quam si a teme- 
raria definitione abstinens id unde patres dissentire videt et 
quod plane investigare non potest, relinquat incertum. Opinio 
tamen in alteram partem potest et debet esse proclivior ut quod 
omnibus aut pluribus aut maxime notis atque prsecipuis aut 
unicuique probato artifici secundum propriam videtur faculta- 
tem facilius admittatur, nisi ratio manifesta aut probabilior in 
bis quse rationi subjecta sunt oppositum doceat esse verum... 

Quia ergo de numero librorum diversas et multiplices pa- 
trum lego sententias catholicae ecclesiae doctorem Hieronymum 
sequens, quern in construendo literse fundamento probatissi- 
mum habeo, sicut constat esse viginti duas literas Hebraeorum 
sic viginti duos libros Yeteris Testamenti in tribus distinctos 
ordinibus indubitanter credo... Liber vero Sapientise et Ecclesi- 
asticus, Judith, Tobias et Pastor, ut idem pater asserit, non 
reputantur in Canone, sed neque Machabseorum liber, qui in 
duo volumina scinditur....Ille autem qui Pastor inscribitur an 
alicubi sit nescio, sed certum est quod Hieronymus et Beda 
ilium vidisse et legisse testantur. His adduntur Novi Testa- 
menti octo Yolumina, scilicet, Evangelium Matthaei Marci 
Luca3 Toannis, Epistolse Pauli quindecim uno volumine com- 
prehensae, licet sit vulgata et fere omnium communis opinio 

non esse nisi quatuordecim Ceterum quindecima est ilia quae 

ecclesise Laodicensium scribitur, et licet, ut ait Hieronymus, 
ab omnibus explodatur, tamen ab apostolo scripta est. Neque 
sententia hasc de aliorum prresumitur opinione sed ipsius apo- 



518 



Catalogues of Boohs of the Bible 



APPENDIX 



stoli testimonio roboratur. Meminit enim ipsius in Epistola 
ad Colossenses his verbis : cum lecta fuerit apud vos hcec epi- 
stola, facite in Laodicensium ecclesia legatur, et ea quce Laodicen- 
sium est legatur a vobis. Sequuntur epistolae canonicae sept em 
in uno volumine, deinde Actus Apostolorum in alio et tandem 
Apocalypsis. Et hunc quidem numerum esse librorum qui in 
sacrarum scripts rarum canon em admittuntur Celebris apud ec- 
clesiam et indubitata traditio est, qui tanta apud omnes vigent 
auctoritate ut contradictionis aut dubietatis locum sanis men- 
tibus non relinquant quin conscriptae sint digito Dei. Jure 
ergo et merito cavetur et condemnatur ut reprobus qui in mo- 
rum verborumque commercio, praesertim in foro fidelium, hujus 
divini eloquii passim et publice non admittit argentum quod 
igne Spiritus Sancti examinatum est, purgatum septuplum. 
Istis ergo secure fides incumbat et illis quae bine probatum et 
debitum accipimus firmamentum, quoniam infidelis et haereti- 
cus est qui eis ausus fuerit refragari. 

De librorum vero auctoribus variantur opiniones, licet ista 
praevaluerit apud ecclesiam eos ab illis esse praescriptos qui in 
singulorum titulis praenotantur...Sed quae cura est, serenissime 
domine, lias atque alias in investigatione auctorum discutere, 
opiniones cum verum omnium sanctarum scripturarum constet 
esse auctorem Spiritum Sanctum 1 Nam beatus Gregorius in 
Moralibus yerissime et elegantissime, cum constet libri beati 
Job, quern exponebat, Spiritum Sanctum esse auctorem, de 
scriptore libri postmodum quserere habendum esse ac si cum de 
scriptore certum sit de calamo quo liber scriptus sit quaeratur. 



Hugo de 
S. Victore. 

t 1 140 A.D. 



XXXII. 

De Script. 6. Omnis divina Scriptura in duobus Testa- 
mentis continetur. Yeteri videlicet et Novo. Utrumque Tes- 
.tamentum tribus ordinibus distinguitur. Tetus Testamentum 
continet legem, prophetas, hagiographos. Novum autem Evan- 
gelium apostolos patres. Primus ordo Yeteris Testamenti, id 
est lex... Fentateu chum habet...Secundus ordo est propheta- 
rum : hie continet octo vol umina... Deinde tertius ordo novem 



during the first Eight Centuries. 519 

Labet libros...Omnes ergo fiunt numero visnnti duo... Sunt appendix 

praeterea alii quidam libri ut Sapientia Salomonis, liber Jesu 

filii Sirach et liber Judith et Tobias et libri Machabaaorum, qui 

leguntur quidem sed non scribuntur in canone. His xxii 

libris Yeteris Testament!, viii libri Novi Testamenti jungun- 

tur. In primo ordine Novi Testamenti sunt iv Evangelia, 

In secundo ordine similiter sunt quatuor, videlicet Actus Apo- 

stolorum, Epistolae Pauli xiv sub uno volumine contexts, 

Canonical Epistolae, Apocalypsis. In tertio ordine primum 

locum babent Decretalia quos Canonicos, i. e. regulares appella- 

mus ; deinde sanctorum patruni scripta, i. e. Hieronymi, Au- 

gustini, Ambrosii, Gregorii, Isidori, Origenis, Bedae, et aliorum 

doctorum, quae infinita sunt. Haec tamen scripta pat rum in 

textu divinarum scripturarum non coruputantur, quandoquidem 

in Vetere Testamento nt diximus quidam libri sunt qui non 

scribuntur in Canone et tamen leguntur, ut Sapientia Salo- 

monis et ceteri Textus igitur divinarum scripturarum quasi 

totum corpus principaliter xxx libris continetur. Horum xxii 

in Vetere, viii in Novo Testamento, sicut supra monstratum 

est, coniprehenduntur. Caetera vero scripta quasi adjuncta 

sunt et ex his praecedentibus manantia. In his auteni ordi- 

nibus maxime utriusque Testamenti apparet convenientia : 

quia sicut post legem prophetae, et post prophetas hagiographi, 

ita post Evangelium apostoli, et post apostolos doctores ordine 

successerunt. Et mira quadam divinae dispensationis ratione 

actum est, ut cum in singulis Scripturis plena et perfecta 

Veritas consistat, nulla tamen superflua sit 

XXXIIL 

Decretum de Canonicis Scripturis. Sacrosancta cscumenica SfcJJJl 
et generalis Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu Sancto legitime ^pr. 8, 1546', 
congregata,...hoc sibi perpetuo ante oculos proponens, ut sub- 
latis erroribus puritas ipsa evangelii in ecclesia conservetur... 
perspiciensque hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris 
scriptis et sine scriptis traditionibus, quae ab ipsius Chris ti ore 



520 Catalogues of Boohs of the Bible. 

appendix a ^ -A.p os tolis accepts aut ab ipsis apostolis Spiritu Sancto die- 
D - tante quasi per manus traditse ad nos usque pervenerunt; 
orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tarn Ve- 
teris quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus deus sit 
auctor; necnon traditiones ipsas turn ad fidem turn ad mores 
pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo vel a Spiritu 
Sancto dictatas et continua successione in ecclesia Catholica 
eonservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et vene- 
ratur. Sacrorum vero libroruni indicem huic deer e to adseri- 
bendum censuit, ne cui dubitatio suboriri possit, quinam sint 
qui ab ipsa synodo suscipiuntur. Sunt vero infra scripti. Tes- 
tamenti vet eris, quinque Moysis, i. e Josue, Judicum, Ruth, 

quatuor Pegum, duo Paralipomenon, Esdra? primus et secundus, 
qui dicitur Neemias, Thobias, Judith, Hester, Job, Psalterium 
Davidicum cl psalmorum, Parabola?, Ecclesiastes, Canticum 
Canticorum, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Hieremias cum 
Paruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, duodecim prophetse minores, i.e. 
Osea...Malachias, duo Machabseorum, primus et secundus. 
Testamenti novi, quatuor Evangelia... Actus Apostolorum a 
Luca evangelista conscripti. Quatuordecim epistolse Pauli 
apostoli, ad Pomanos...ad Hebrseos. Petri apostoli duse, 
Joannis apostoli tres, Jacobi apostoli una, Juda3 apostoli 
una, et Apocalypsis Joannis apostoli. Si quis autem libros 
ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia 
catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione 
habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit ; et traditiones 
pra3dictas sciens et prudens contempserit ; anathema sit. 



B. 



APPENDIX E. 
THE EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEXES. 

The text of this Epistle is given according to four Manuscripts appendix 
in the British Museum. 

A. Cod. Add. 11,852. A very valuable Manuscript of St 
Paul's Epistles, which belonged to the Abbey of St Gall, 
and was written probably between a. d. 872 — 884. An 
inscription at the end of the Capitula of the Epistle to 
the Romans records the original donation. 

Iste liber Pauli retinet documenta sereni : 

Hartniotus Gallo quern contulit Abba beato. 

Si quis et hunc sancti sumit de culinine Galli, 

Hunc Gallus Paulusque simul dent pestibus amplis. 

The text of the Epistle in this Manuscript is perhaps the 
best which remains. The Epistle stands after that to the 
Hebrews and has no Capitula. 

H. Sari. 2833, 31, 1, 2. Ssec. xi. written for the use 
of the Cathedral of Angers. The Epistle follows the 
Apocalypse. 

C. Add. 10,546. Saec. ix. (known as Charlemagne s Bible). 
The Epistle comes between that to the Hebrews and the 
Apocalypse. 

The text is printed from Cod. Keg. 1 e vii, viii, Sa?c. ix, x. 
in which it appears in its fullest form. I have added readings 
from the Lambeth manuscripts 3, 4 (LJand 1152 (L 2 ), Saec. xii, 
xiii, but I cannot feel sure that the collation is complete. 

The italics mark the extent of variation from the printed 
text; the t an addition to it; the * and *■* the iirst and second 
hands. 



522 The Epistle to the Laodicenes. 

appendix Explicit epistola ad Hebbeos scmpta. 

Jci. 

ab urbe Roma Habet versus dcc. 
Incipiunt capitula in epistola ad Laudi 

CENSES. 

1 Paulus apostolus pro Laudicensibus domino gratias refert 
et hortatur eos ut a seductoribus* decipiantur. 

ii [Quod**?] manifesta vincula apostoli in quibus ketatur 
et gaudet. 

in Monet Laudicenses apostolus ut sicut sui audierunt 
prsesentiam ita retineant et sine retractatu** faciant. 

mi Hortatur apostolus Laudicenses ut fide sint firari et 
que** integra et vera et deo sunt placita faciant. Salutatio 
fratrum in osculo sancto. Expliciunt Capitula Incipit Epi- 
stola ad Laudicenses. 

Incipit Epistola ad Laudicenses 1 . 

I. Paulus apostolus, 

non ab hominibus neque 
per liominem, sed per Ihesum Christum 
et Deum patrem omnipotentem 
5 qui suscitavit eum a mortuis, 
Fratribus qui sunt Laudiciae : gratia vobis 
et pax a deo tpatret et Domino nostro Ihesu Christo. 
Gratias ago Deo meo et Christo Ihesu per omnem 
orationem meam, quod estis permanentes 

i Incipit Epistola. Pauli ad Laodicenses. A.H. Incipit Epi- 
stola ad Laodicenses C. 

2 ab homine A. 
4, 5 om. ACHL 2 . 

6 Laodiciae CH. Laoditise*, Laodiciae** A. 

7 Deo et p. L 2 . 
... patre nostro H. 

... Domino om. nostro CHL 2 . 

8 ago Christo per om. AH; Deo meo per om. C ; om. et...per L 2 . 

9 perm, estis CHL 1 L 2 . 



Tlie Epistle to the Laodiccnes. 523 

in eo et perseverantes in operibus fejus speran- appendix 

tes promissum in die judicationis. Keque 

enim destituant tos quorundam vaniloquia 

insinuantiumi; sed peto ne vos avertant**a* 

a** veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur. 

Et nunc faciei Deus ut t qui sunt ex me ad per- 1 5 

fectum veritatis evangelii del sermentes\ et fa- 

cientes benignitatem eorum quae sunt 

salutis vitae setemse. 

II. Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea quae pa- 

tior in Christo,t in quibus laetor et gaudeo ; 20 

et hoc mini est ad salutem perpetuam, quod ipsum 

factum torationibus vestrist administrate Spiritu 

Sancto, sive per vitam sive per mortem. Est enim milii 

vere vita in Christo et mori gaudium;tet ipse 

in vobis faciet misericordiam suam, ut eandem 1 5 

dilectionem habeatis et sitis unanimes. 



10 op. bonis H. om. in op. ejus C. 

10, 11 promissum expectantes CHLo. sp. promissionem A. 

11 judicii CHL 2 . 

12 om. enim AQH. destituunt HL 2 . destituit C, quorumdam A. 
... vaniloquentia AC. 

13 insinuantium se A. insanientium H. ut vos a v. ACHL2. avar- 
tant* A. a erased. 

15 Deus faciet A. ut sint A. 

15, 16 in profectum A. ad pfectum H. ad profectum C. 

16 deservientes ACH. des. sint H. 

1 7 operum quae AH. operumq. C. 

19 sunt palam A. 

20 in Chr. Ihesu.CLp om. in ACHI^. ut gau. C^ 

2 1 michi H. and v. 2 3. 

22 factum est H. et adm. H. et amminstr. C. 
22, 23 sancto spiritu A. spixitum sanctum C. 

23 om. per H. 

24 vivere vita CH. vivere A; gau. vel lucrum H; ipsura A. id 
psum C. 

25 misericordia sua A, 



524? The Epistle to the Laodicenes. 

appendix III. Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia* mei 

E. 

ita retinete et facite in timore Dei, et erit vobis 
pax et vita in aeternum ; Est enim Deus qui 
30 operatur in vobis ; et facite sine retractatw 
quaecunque facitis. 

IIII. Et quod est t, dilectissimi, gaudete in Christof et prae 
cavete sordidostin lucrum. nines sint petitio- 
nes vestrse palam t apud Deum, et estote sensu 

35 fir 'mi in Christo Ihesu. Et quae sunt integra et 
vera t et justa et pudica et amabilia t et sanctaf 
facite; et quae audistis et accepistis in corde 
retinete et erit vobis pax. Salutate omnes 
fratres in osculo sancto. Salutant vos omnes sancti in 

[Christo 

40 Ihesu. Gratia Domini nostri Ihesu Christi cum spiritu 

[vestro. Ett facite 



27 cepistis L x . praesentiam Domini H. prassentiam A**. 

28 om. ita CLi. tim. Domini H. 

29 om. pax et ACH in* seterna (om. in**) A. 

30 vos C. reatu H. retractatione A. retractu C. 

31 qusecumque A. 

31, 32 facite et quod est. Dilectissimi C. 

32 est optimum AH. Christo Domino L x . in Domino C. 

33 sord. omnes H. in lucro ACH. In omnibus A. om. sint H. 

34 p. sint H. ante A. 

34, 35 firmi in sensu Christi ACHL t . 

35 om. sunt ACH. 

36 vera sunt C. pudica et casta et justa P". pudica et justa et casta 
A. vera sunt L x . pudica et justa CLi. am. sunt H. om. et sancta 
ACH. 

38, 39 om. salutate — sancto C. 

39 sanctos {for fratres) A. om. omnes C. om. in Christo Ihesu 
ACH. 

40 hanc facite H. 

40 — 42 Efc facite legi Colosensium vobis. Explicit Epistola ad Laodi- 

censes C. 



The Epistle to the Laodicenes. 625 

legi Colosensibus hanc epistolam et Colosensibns appendix 

vos legite. Deus autem et pater Domini nostri Ihesu E 

Christi custodiat vos immacidatos in Christo 
Ihesu, cui est Iwnor et gloria in secula seculorum Amen 



Explicit Epistola ad Laudicexses. 
ixcipit prologus hleroximi 
In Apocalypsis (sic), 

41 om. hanc epistolam AH. 

41, 42 Colosensium vobis AH. Colosensium vos Li. Explicit epi- 
stola ad Laodicenses. A. Explicit. H. 

42 om. Deus autem... to the end AH. 



INDEX I. 



List of the Autlwrities quoted in reference to the Canon of 

t.ht>. A^/sj/i To sit n merit. 1 



Acta Felicis, 364 

^Ethiopic Version, 323 

Africanus, s. Julius 

Agrippa Castor, 82 

A lexander, Bp. of Alexandria, 32 1 n. 

380 
Alfric, 406 
Alogi, 245 

Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, 404 
Ammonius, 281 
Ahphilochics, 396, 497 
Anatolius, 322 n. 
A ndreu; Bp. of Caesarea in Cappa- 

dock, 397 
Apollinaris, s. Claudius 
Apollonius of Ephesus, 335 
Apostolic Canons, 389, 484 
Arabic Version of Erpenius, 212 
Archelaus, 348 n. 
Arethas, 397 
Aristides, 72 
Aristides Soph. 357 n. 
Aristo of Pella, 81 
Arius, 381 
Arnobius, 104 
Articles, The English, 445 
Athanasius, 398, 495 
Athenagoras, 103, 304 n. 
Auct. adv. Cataphryg. 340 

— de Mundo, 332 

— adv. Hser. [HippoL] 331 

— Parv. Labyr. 332 

— ad No vat. haer. 327 

— de Resurr. [Justin], 148 
Augustine, 404, 506 

A ur elites, 326 

Bardesanes, 208 

Barnabas, 37 

Basil, Bp. of Csesarea in Cappadocia, 

397 
Basilides, 253 

Bede, 405 



Beza, 438 
Bullinger, 447 

Ccesarius, 397 n. 
Caietan, Cardinal, 423 
Caius, 245 n. 331, 359 n, 
Calvin, 436 
' Carpocrates, 257 
Carthage, s. Council 
Cassian, 400 

Cassiodorus, 404 n. 514 
Catharinus, 425 
CelsiiS; 356 
Cerdo, 273 n. 
Cerinthus, 243 
Chrysostom, s. Johannes 
Claudius Apollinaris, 198 
Clement of Rome, 20 
[Clement's] Second Epistle, 155 

— Two Epistles to Virgin?, 

162 n* 
Clement of Alexandria, 104, 298, 

301 n. 308 
Clementine Homilies, 251 
Codex, Alex. (A), 493 

— Barocc. 499 

— Boerner. (Q), 465 

— Clarom. (D), 504 

— Coislin. (H), 346 
Cohortatio ad Grsecos [Justin], 148 
Commodian, 327 

Concil. Aquisgranense, 482 n. 

— Carthaginiense (256 A.D.), 

319 n. 

— Carthaginiense in. 390, 

483 

— CaNSTANTINOPOLITANUM 
(1672), 389 n. 

— HlEROSOLTMITANUM (,1672), 

389 n. 

— Hipponense, 392 n. 

— Laodicenum, 384 

— XicanuM, 381 



1 The authorities which are merely noticed in passing are printed in Italics : those 
which supply Catalogues of the New Testament in Capitals. 



528 



INDEX I. List of Authorities. 



Concil. Quinisextum, 388 

— Tolosanum, 402 n. 

— Tridentinum, 425, 519 
Confessio Belgica, 440 

— Gallica, 441 
Constantine the Great, 378 
Cornelius, 330 
Cosmas, 399 n. 
Cyprian, 104, 3^4* 3 2( 5, 327 
Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 398, 491 
Cyril, Bp. of Alexandria, 399 
Cyril Lucar, 389 n. 

Damascus, s. Johannes 
Damasus, 403 
Diamper, Synod of^ 213 
Didymus, 399 
Diognetus, Letter to, 77 
Dionysius of Corinth, 166 
Dionysius of Rome, 331 
Dionysius of Alexandria, 319 
Dionysius Areopagita, 399 n. 
Dionysius Bar Salibi, 212 
Donatists, 365 
Dorotheus, 344 
Dositheus, 389 n. 

Ebedjesu, 394, 488 
Ebionites, 138 n. 251 
Elders quoted by Trenseus, 68 
Ephrem Syrus, 395 
Epiplianes, 258 n. 
Epiphanius, 398, 492 
Erasmus, 420 
Eucherius, 405 

Eusebius, Bp. of Caesarea in Pales- 
tine, 104, 366 
Euthalius, 399 
Evangelists in Trajan's time, 70 

Faustinus, 404 n. 
Eirmilian, 338 
Fulke, 447 
Gelasius, 403, 512 
Gennadius, 405 

Gregory of Nazianzus, 396, 496 
Gregory of Neo-Caesarea, 337 
Gregory of Nyssa, 397 
■Grotius, 443 

Hegesippus, 179 
Heracleon, 263 
Hennas, 175 
Hermias, 103 



Hesychius, 345 n. 

Hierocles, 363 

Hilary, Bp. of Poictiers, 405, 514 

Hilary of Rome, 401 

Hippolytus, 333 

Hugo of St Victor, 412, 518 

Ignatius, 25 

Innocent I. Bp. of Rome, 403, 512 

Irenaeus, 296, 301 n. 336 

Jsidorus (son of Basilides), 257 

Isidore of Pelusium, 399 

Isidore, Bp. of Seville, 401, 405/5 15 

Jerome, 402, 509 

Jewel, 447 

Johannes Chrysostomus, 393, 485 

Johannes Damascenus, 395, 487 

Johannes Scholasticus, 387 

John of Salisbury, 413, 516 

Julius Africanus, 322 n. 

Junilius, 394, 485 

Justin Martyr, 83-155 

Justin the Gnostic, 250 n. 

Karlstad t, 433 

Lactantius, 104, 326 n. 
Latin Versions : 

Vetus Latina, 215 

Vulgate, 229 
Leo Allatius, 401 n. 
Leontius, 501 
Lucian of Antioch, 344 
Lucian, 357 
Lucifer, 404 n. 
Luther, 429 

Malchion, 344 
Mani, 352 
Marcion, 272 
Marcosians, 269 n. 
Martyrdom of Ignatius, 67 n. 

— Polycarp, s. Smyrna 

Melito, 193, 490 
Memphitic Version, 323 
Menander, 242 
Methodius, 339 
Metrophanes Critopulus, 390 n. 
Miltiades, 341 n. 
Minucius Felix, 103, 330 
Montanus, 351 
MURATORIAN CANON, 1 87 



ixdex I. List of Authorities. 



521) 



Naassenes, 248 
Nicephorus, 400, 502 
Nicephorus Callisti, 401 n. 
Novatus, 330 

(Eeolampadius, 436 

(Ecumenius, 401 

Ophites, 249 11. 

Op tat us, 401 

Oratio ad Grascos [Justin], 148 

Origen, 104, 312 

Orthodox Confession, 389 n. 

Parian, 40 1 n. 

Palladius, 393 n. 

Paraphilus, 345 

Pantgenus, 70, 297 

Papias, 59 

Patripassians> 350 

Paul of Samosata, 343 

Pelagins, 401 

Peratici, 250 

Peter Martyr, Bp. of Alexandria, 321 

Philastrius, 404, 508 

Phileas, 321 

Phaibadius, 401 

Phot ius, 40 1 

Pier lus, 321 

Piny t us, 167 

Pistis Sophia, 356 n. 

Poly carp, 33 

Poly crates, 334 

Porphyry, 356 

Praxeas, 350 

Prosper, 405 

Prudentius, 405 

Ptolemaeus, 266 

Quadratus, 72 

Rufinus, 404, 510 

Salvian, 405 

Saturninus, 254 n. 

Sedidius, 405 

Serapion, Bp. of Antioch, 342 

Sethiani, 250 

Severian, 393 n. 

Sibylline Oracles, 355 



Simon Magus, 240 

Sixtus Senensis, 427 

' Sixty Books' s. Cod. Barocc. 

Smyrna, Epistle of the Church of, 

199 11. 
Sulpiciui, 405 
Syinmachus, 253 n. 
Synopsis S. Scripture ap. Ath. 

399 n - 
Synopsis S. Scripture ap. Chrys. 

393 

Syrian Versions : 
Peshito, 211 
PhUoxenian, 210 n. 
Haraean, ib* 

Tatian, 103, 277 

Tertullian, 103, 300, 301 n. 324, 

326, 327 
Testaments of thexii. Patriarchs, 355 
Thebaic Version, 323 
Theodore, Bp. of Mopsuestia, 393 
Theodoret, 394 
Theodotus, 271 n. 
Theognostus, 321 
Theonas, 321 

Theophilus, 103, 304 n. 341 
Theophylact, 401 
Tichonius, 366 n. 
Tyndaie, 444, 447 

Ulphilas, 381 n. 
Unitarians, 350 

Valentinus, 258 
Victor of Antioch, 394 n. 
Victorinus Pctaritnsis, 325 
Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of the 

Churches of, 295 
Vincent of Lerins, 40 1 

Westminster Confession, 441 
Whitaher, 447 

Ximenes, Cardinal, 419 

Zeno, 401 
Zwingli, 435 



MM 



INDEX II. 

A Synopsis of the Historical Evidence for the Boohs of 
the New Testament, 



Tlie characteristic teaching 
of the Apostles. 
t. The teaching of St Peter. 
Clement of Rome, 22 
Poly carp, 34 

2. The teaching of St J AMES. 
Clement of Rome, 23 
Hennas, 174 

3. The teaching of St John. 
Clement of Rome, 23 
Ignatius, 32 

Letter to Diognetus, 77 
Hermas, 177 
Cerinthus, 244 
Ophites, 250 
Carpocrates, 25S 

4. The teaching of St PaEL. 
Clement of Rome, 23 
Ignatius, 31 
Polycarp, 35 

Letter to Diognetus, 77, 78 
Justin Martyr, 147 
Hermas, 176 
Carpocrates, 258 
Marcosians, 270 
Testaments of the xii. Patri- 
archs, 355 

5. The teaching of the Epistle to 

the Hebrews. 
Clement of Rome, 2 3 
Barnabas, 40 



Athanasius, 398, 495 

Augustine, 404, 506 

Canon Apostol. 484 

Canon Murat. 187 

Cassiodorus, 514 

Cod. Alexandrinus, 493 

Cod. Barocc. 499 

Cod. Clarom. 504 

Concil. Gartkacf. (Hippo), 390, 

483 

— [Laod.], 384, 482 

— Trident. 519 
Cosmas of Jerusalem, 396 n. 
Cyril of Jerusalem, 398, 491 
Ebed Jesu, 394, 488 
Epiphanius, 398, 492 
Eusebius, 367 

Gelasius, 403, 512 
Gregory Nazianz. 396, 496 
Hilary, 514 

Hugo of St Victor, 518 
Jerome, 402, 509 
Innocent I. 403, 512 
Johannes Damase. 395, 4S7 
Isidore of Seville, 405, 515 
John of Salisbury, 516 
Junilius, 394, 485 
Leontius, 400, 501 
Nicephorus, 400, 502 
Origen, 312, 495 
Philastrius, 404, 508 
JRufinus, 4 04, 510 
Syn. S. Script, (ap. Chrys.), 393 



ii. The Catalogues of the Books 
of the New Testament \ 

Alfric, 406 
Amphilochius, 396, 497 



Hi. The Evidence for the dif- 
ferent parts of the New 
Testament generally. 

1. The Gospel 8. 
Apostolic Fathers, 46 
Evangelists in Trajan's time, 70 



1 The Catalogues which agree with the received Catalogues of the New Testament are 
marked by Italics. 



index ii. Synopsis of Historical Evidence. 531 



Letter to Diognetus, 78 
Justin Martyr, 100 
Claudius Apollinaris, i()3 
Peshito (iv.), 206 
Carpoc rates, 258 
Valentinus, 260 
Ptolernseirs (iv.), 268 
Marcosians (iv.), 269 
Theodotus (iv.), 271 n. 
Tatian (iv.), 279 
Tertullian (iv.), 301 n. 
Clemens Alex, (iv.), ib. 
Ireneeus (iv.), ib. 
Origen (iv.), 312 
UI(Ttls 2o0ia, 356 n. 
Celsus (iv.), 356 

2. The Catholic Epistles. 
Seven : 

Pamphilus (?), 346 

Eusebius (?), 375 

Didymus (\ 2 Peter), 399 

Euthalius, ib, 

Cassian (om. 2 and 3 John), 400 

Ambrose, 404 
Three : 

Peshito, 2 [2 

Chrysostom, 393 
Two (1 Peter, 1 John): 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 393 

Severian of Gabala (?), 393 n. 

3, The Epistles of St Paul 

Thirteen (without Ep, to Hebrews): 

Canon Murat. 189 

Peshito, 206 

Vetus Latina, 225 

Tertullian, 302 n. 

Clemens Alex. ( = Philemon), ib. 

Irenajus ( = Philemon), ib. 

Hippolytus ( — Philemon), 333 

Cyprian, 324 

Victorinus, 325 

Caius, 331 
Ten (excluding Pastoral Epp, and 
Ep. to Hebrews) : 

Basilides, 257 

Marcion, 274 
Fourteen : 

Origen (?), 316 

Donatists (? Hebrews), 366 

Eusebius, 368 



Chrysostom, 393 
Euthalius, 399 
Cosmas, 399 n. 
Cassian, 400 
Ambrose, 404 

iv. Special Evidence for sepa- 
rate Books 1 . 

The Gospel of St Matthew ; 
Barnabas, 44 n. 
Papias, 62 

Seniores ap. Iren. 69 
Pantaenus, 70 
Justin Martyr, 99, H3, 120, 

Frag, de Resurr. 148 
Dionysius of Corinth, 16; 
Hermas, 176 
Hegesippus, 182 
[Simon Magus], 242 
Cerinthus, 243 
Ophites, 249, 251 
Sethiani, 250 
Ebionites, 251 
Clementine Homilies, ib, 
Basilides, 256 
Valentinus, 260 12, 
Heracleon, 264 
Ptolemseus, 267 
Marcosians, 269 
Tatian, 278 
Athenagoras, 304 n. 
Theophilus, ib. 

The Gospel of St Marie : 

Papias, 63 
Justin Martyr, 99 
Frag, de Resurr. 148 
Canon Murat. 187 
Clementine Homilies, 251 

The Gospel of St Luke : 

Justin Martyr, 99, 113, 119 
Frag, de Resurr. 148 
Hegesippus, 182 
Canon Murat. 187 
Ophites, 249 

Clementine Homilies, 251 
Basilides, 256 
Valentinus, 260 n. 
Heracleon, 264 



1 In the case of the 'acknowledged' books I have not generally carried this later than 
the beginning of the third century, as at that time all controversy ceasea 



532 index ii. Synopsis of Historical Evidence. 



Marcion, 274 

Epistle of Church of Vienne, 

Theophilus (?), 304 n. 

Tlie Gospel of St John : 
Papias, 65 

Seniores ap. Ireri. 69 
Justin Martyr, 130, 145 
Frag, de Eesurr. 148 
Cohort, ad Graecos, 148 
Hermas, 177 
Hegesippus, 182 
Canon Murat. 187 
Claudius Apollinaris, T99 n. 
[Simon Magus], 242 
Ophites, 249 
Peratici, 250 
Sethiani, 250 
Clementine Homilies, 251 
Basilides, 256 
Valentinus, 260 n. 
Heracleon, 264 
Tatian, 278 
Epistle of Church of Vienne, 

295 
Athenagoras, 304 n. 
Theophilus, ib. 
Poly crates, 334 

The Acts: 

Cohort, ad Graecos, 148 

Hermas, 176 

Hegesippus, 182 

Canon Murat. 189 

Peshito, 206 

Epistle of Church of Yienne, 

295 
Tertullian, 30 1 n. 
Clemens Alex. ib. 
Irenaeus (cf. c. Hcer. ill. 3. 3), 

ib. 

Ep. to the Romans : 

Clement of Rome, 44 n. 
Polycarp, ib. 
Seniores ap. Iren. 69 
Letter to Diognetus, 78 
Justin Martyr, 146 
Melito, 194 
Ophites, 249 
Basilides, 256 
Valentinus, 260 n. 
Heracleon, 264 



Ptolemaeus, 267 

Theodotus, 271 n. 

Tatian (?), 278 

Epistle of Church of Yienne, 

Athenagoras, 304 n. 
Theophilus, ib. 
Uteris ^ocpia, 356 n. 

1 Ep. to the Corinthians : 

Clement of Eome, 44 n. 

Ignatius, ib. 

Polycarp, ib. 

Seniores ap. Iren. 69 

Letter to Diognetus, 78 

Justin Martyr y 146 

Frag, de Eesurr. 148 

Cohort, ad Graecos, ib. 

[Simon Magus], 242 

Ophites, 249 

Peratici, 250 

Basilides, 256 

Valentinus, 260 n. 

Heracleon, 264 . 

Ptolemaeus, 267 

Theodotus, 271 n. 

Tatian (?), 278 

Epistle of Church of Yienne (?), 

2 95 
Athenagoras, 304 n. 
Theophilus, ib. 

1 Ep. to the Corinthians: 
Polycarp, 44 n. ' 
Seniores ap. Iren. 69 
Letter to Diognetus, 78 
Ophites, 249 
Sethiani, 2=0 
Basilides, 256 
Athenagoras, 304 n. 
Theophilus, ib. 

Ep. to the Galatians : 

Polycarp, 44 n. 
Letter to Diognetus. 78 
Orat. ad Graecos, 148 
Ophites, 249 
Ptolemaeus, 268 
Theodotus, 271 n. 
Tatian, 279 
Athenagoras, 304 n. 

Ep. to the Colossians : 
Justin Martyr, 146 



index ii. Synopsis of Historical Evidence. 533 



Cohort, ad Groecos. i+$ 
Peratici, 250 
Basilides, 256 
Ptolemreus, 268 
Theodotus, 2 71 11. 
Theophilus, 304 n. 

.£/>. to the Ephesians : 

Clement of Rome, 44 n. 

Ignatius, ib. 

Polyearp (?), ib. 

Letter to Diognetus, 78 

Ophites, 249 

Basi.ides, 256 

Valentirms, 260 n. 

Ptolemaeus, 268 

Marcosians (?), 269 

Theodotus, 271 n. 

Epistle of Church of Vienne, 295 

Tneophilus, 304 n. 

Ep. to the Philippians : 
Polyearp, 44 n. 
Ignatius (?), ib. 
Letter to Diognetus, 78 
Erag. de Resurr. 148 
Sethiani, 250 
Basilides, 256 
Theodotus, 271 n. 
Epistle of Church of Vienne, 295 
Theophilus, 304 n. 

1 Ep. to the Thessalonians : 

Ignatius (?), 44 n. 
Polyearp (?), ib. 
Dionysius of Corinth, 167 

1 Ep. to the Thessalonians : 
Justin Martyr, 146 

1 Ep. to Timothy : 

Clement of Rome (?), 44 n. 
Polyearp, ib. 
Barnabas (?), ib. 
Letter to Diognetus, 78 
Frag, de Resurr. T48 
Hegesippus (?), 183 n. 
Basilides (?), 256 
Theodotus, 271 n. 
Epistle of Church of Yienne, 295 
Athenagoras (?), 304 n. 
Theophilus, ib. 

2 Ep. to Timothy ; 
Barnabas (?), 44 n. 



Polyearp, 44 n. 
Heracleon, 264 

Ep. to Tiiu$: 

Clement of Rome (?), 44 n. 
Letter to Diognetus, 79 
Tatian. 278 
Theophilus, 304 n. 

Ep. to Philemon : 
Ignatius (?), 44 n. 

Ep. to the Hebrews; 

Clement of Rome, 44 n. 
Justin Martyr, 147 
Pinytus, 167 
Peshito, 206 
Vetus Latina. 226 
Ophites (?)*, 249 
Valentinus. 260 n. 
Pantaenus (?), 309 
Clement of Alexandria, lb. 
Origen, 313, 317 
Dionysius of Alexandria, 319 
Theognostus, 321 
Peter of Alexandria, lb. 
Alexander of Alex. 321, 381 
Tertullian (?), 325 
Lactantius (?), 326 d. 
Novatus (?), 330 
Irenaeus (?), 337 
Gregory Thaumat. ib. 
Methodius, 339 
Synod. Antioch. 344 
Pamphilus, 346 
Archelaus, 348 n. 
Testaments of the xii. Patr 

archs, 355 
Eusebius, 368. 375 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 393 
Pacian, 401 n. 
Pelagius, 401 
Hilarius Diac. ib. 
Lucifer, 404 n. 
Faustiuus, ib. 

= Canon Murat. 1S9, of. 191 
= Caius. 33 t 
= Irenaeus (?), 337 
= Hippolytus, 333 
= Marcion, 274 
= Cyprian. 324 
— Victorinus, 325 
= No vat us, 330 
= Optatus Mil. 401 



oSi ixdex ii. Synopsis of Historical Evidence. 



= Phcebadius, ib. 
= Zeno, ib. 

Ep. of St James : 

Clement of Rome, 44 n. 

Hernias, 175 

Peshito, 212 

[Clemens Alex.], 308, cf. 311 

Origen, 316, 317 

Dionysius of Alex. 3 1 9 

Gregory Tharanat. 337 

Chrysostom, 393 

Basil, 393 

= Irenaeus (?), 337 

= Tertullian, 326 

= Theodore of Mopsuestia, 393 

First Ep. of St Peter : 
Polycarp, 44 n. 
Papias, 65 

Letter to Diognetus, 79 
Hermas, 176 
Peshito, 212 
Basilides, 256 
Marcosians, 270 
Theodotus, 271 n. 
Epistle of Church of Yienne, 295 
Tertullian, 302 n. 
Clemens Alex. ib. 
Irenaeus, ib. 
Theophilus (?), 304 n. 
Origen, 313 

Second Ep. of St Peter : 

Clement of Rome. Cf. c. xi. ; 

2 Pet. ii. 6-9 
Polycarp (?), 286 n. 
[Clemens Alex. 308, cf. 311] 
Origen (?), 313, 316, 317 
Firmilian (?), 338 
Theophilus (?), 342 
Ephrem Syrus (?), 395 
Palladius, 393 n. 
[Melito, 194] 
. = Peshito, 212 
= Irenaeus, 337 
= Tertullian, 326 
= Cyprian, ib. 
' =Hippolytus, 333 
= Cosmas (?), 399 
= Theodore of Mopsuestia (?), 

393 
First Ep. of St John : 
Polycarp, 44 n. 



Papias, 6$ 

Letter to Diognetus, 77 

Canon Marat. 187 

Peshito, 212 

Valentinus, 260 d. 

Epistle of Church of Yienne, 295 

Tertullian, 301 n. 

Irenaeus, ib. 

Clemens Alex. ib. 

Origen, 313 

Second and Third Epp. of St John : 
Canon Marat (?), 190, 192 
Codex Bezas (Ep. 3), 226 
[Clemens Alex.], 308 

— — Ep. 2, 310 

Origen (?), 316, cf. 317 
Dionysius of Alex. 3 1 9 
Alexander of Alex. (Ep. 2), 381 
Aurelius (Ep. 2), 326 
Irenaaus (Ep. 2), 336 
Tichonius (Ep. 2), 366 n. 
Palladius (Ep. 3), 393 n. 

= Peshito, 212 

= Theodore of Mopsuestia, 393 

Ep. of St Jude: 

Canon Murat. 190, 192 

Clemens Alex. 308, 3 1 1 

Origen, 316 

Tertullian, 326 

Auct. ad Novat. haer. 327 

Malchion, 344 

Palladius, 393 n. 

= Irenaeus, 337 

= Peshito, 212 

= Theodore of Mopsuestia, 393 

Apocalypse : 

Papias, 65 

Justin Martyr, 145 

Dionysius of Corinth, 167 

Hermas, 175 

Canon Murat. 191 

Melito, 194 

Yetus Latina, 228 

Ophites (?), 249 

Marcosians, 270 

Tatian, 278 

Epistle of Church of Yienne, 295 

Tertullian, 302 n. 327 

Clemens Alex. 302 n. 311 

Irenasus, 302 n. 336 

Athenagoras (?), 304 n. 



INDEX II. Synojms of Historical Evidence. 535 



Theophilus (?), ib. 443 

Origen, 313 

Dionysius of Alex. (?), 319 

Yictorinus, 325 

Cyprian, 327 

Comniodian, ib. 

Lactantius, ib. 

Hippolytus, 333 

Apollonius, 335 

Methodius, 339 

Frag. adv. Cataphr. 340 

Pamphilus, 347 

Sibylline Oracles. 355 

Testt. of the xii. Patriarchs, ib. 

Lucian, 357 n. 

Tichonius, 36611. 

Eusebius (?), 371, 376 

Chrysostom (?), 393 n. 



Eplirem Syrus, 395 
Basil, 397 

Gregory of Xyssa, ib. 

Andrew, ib. 

Arethas, ib. 

Epiphanius (?), 398 

Athanasius, ib. 

[Didynms, 399] 

Dionysius Areop. 399 n. 

= Caius (so said), 245 n. 331 

= Dionysius of Alex. 319 

= Peshito, 212 

= (Ecumenius (?), 401 

= Theophylact (?), ib. 

= Concil. Laod. 384 

= Amphilochius, 396 

= Gregory Nazianz. ib. 

= Cyril of Jerusalem, 398 



THE EXD. 



CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




003 255 683 8 



■ 



i ■ ; ■ 






I 



, *►"«'■* 






m 






■ ■ 



Lin 



\*V 









m 



-JS.i 



I ;i » I 



r- 



l*. 






m 
■ 



rae 



** 



H 






i ■ 



A/'A«t«**.v 



